[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-14]
[Page 5157-5185]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 13. House-Senate Relations
The general subject of relations between the House and Senate, and
that of House-Senate conferences, are discussed in other
chapters.<SUP>(15)</SUP> This section discusses a few issues that arise
specifically with respect to appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra; Ch. 33, House-Senate
Conferences, infra. See also Ch. 13, Powers and Prerogatives of
the House, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Constitution, it is exclusively the prerogative of the
[[Page 5158]]
House to originate revenue bills. Article I, section 7, clause 1,
provides that,
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.<SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 102 (1981).
See also Constitution of the United States of America:
Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d
Sess. pp. 125, 126 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of this prerogative is discussed in detail
elsewhere.<SUP>(17)</SUP> (Because questions relating to the
prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation involve
interpretation of the Constitution rather than House rules, they are
decided by the House rather than the Chair.) <SUP>(18)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13-20, supra.
18. See Ch. 13 Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has traditionally taken the view that this prerogative
encompasses the sole power to originate at least the general
appropriation bills. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, has observed:
<SUP>(19)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cannon's Procedure (1959) p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under immemorial custom the general appropriation bills,
providing for a number of subjects <SUP>(20)</SUP> as distinguished
from special bills appropriating for single, specific
purposes,<SUP>(1)</SUP> originate in the House of Representatives
and there has been no deviation from that practice since the
establishment of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3566-68.
1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the view expressed by Mr. Cannon, the House has returned
Senate-passed general appropriation bills.<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate has not always accepted the view that the House has the
exclusive right to originate appropriation measures.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Ch. 13 Sec. 20.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues sometimes arise with respect to the implications of House
rules barring, in specified circumstances, unauthorized appropriations
and legislation on general appropriation bills,<SUP>(4)</SUP> and
appropriations on legislative bills.<SUP>(5)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Ch. 26, infra, for general discussion of Rule XXI clause 2.
5. See Sec. 4, supra, for general discussion of appropriations on
legislative bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of order under the House rule prohibiting appropriations on
legislative bills <SUP>(6)</SUP> have been successfully directed
against items of appropriation in Senate bills, for
example,<SUP>(7)</SUP> but not against a Senate amendment to an
appropriation bill.<SUP>(8)</SUP> Procedural remedies
[[Page 5159]]
against the inclusion of appropriations in Senate bills also include
possible points of order under section 401 of the Congressional Budget
Act (if the Senate provision can be construed as new spending authority
not subject to amounts specified in advance in appropriations acts
where budget authority has not been provided in advance; section 401 is
not applicable where money has already been appropriated and is in a
revolving fund).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
7. See Sec. 13.16, infra.
8. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1572. Rule XXI clause 5 does apply
to an amendment in the House to a Senate amendment to a House
legislative bill. See Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.29 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House may also return Senate bills which contain appropriations
to the Senate by asserting the constitutional prerogative of the House
to originate ``revenue'' measures, which, as noted above, are construed
to include at least ``general appropriation bills.''
A rule of the House <SUP>(9)</SUP> provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill
which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of Rule
XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House,<SUP>(10)</SUP>
nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed
to by the managers on the part of the House unless specific
authority to agree to such amendment shall be first given by the
House by a separate vote on every such amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981),
prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on
general appropriation bills. For further discussion of
unauthorized appropriations and legislation on general
appropriation bills, generally, and Senate amendments that
violate the rule, see Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this rule, where a House legislative measure has been
committed to conference, and the conferees agree to a Senate amendment
appropriating funds, the conference report thereon may be ruled
out.<SUP>(11)</SUP> In the 96th Congress, a point of order that House
conferees had violated clause 2 of Rule XX by agreeing to a provision
in a Senate amendment to a House legislative bill, directing the use of
funds already appropriated for a new purpose, was conceded, and the
conference report was ruled out of order.<SUP>(12)</SUP> But a point of
order against an appropriation in a conference report on a legislative
bill will only lie under the rule if that provision was originally
contained in a Senate amendment and if House conferees were without
specific authority to agree to that amend
[[Page 5160]]
ment, and will not lie against a provision permitted by the House to
remain in its bill.<SUP>(13)</SUP> Moreover, since the rule applies
only to Senate amendments which are sent to conference, it does not
apply to appropriations contained in Senate legislative
bills.<SUP>(14)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 13.8, 13.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 13.9, infra.
13. See Sec. 13.12, infra.
14. See Sec. 13.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where an appropriation for a certain purpose has been enacted into
law, a provision in a legislative bill authorizing the use, without a
subsequent appropriation, of those funds for a new purpose constitutes
an appropriation prohibited by clause 5 of Rule XXI, and if in a Senate
amendment included in a conference report violates clause 2 of Rule XX
(prohibiting House conferees from agreeing to such a provision absent
authority from the House).<SUP>(15)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 3.30
and Ch. 33 Sec. 15.13. (4th
ed.). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prerogatives of House and Senate
Sec. 13.1 A discussion took place in the House with regard to the
prerogatives of the House in initiating the forms of general
appropriation bills, during debate on a motion that the House
instruct its managers of a conference committee not to agree to a
Senate amendment to a War Department appropriation bill.
On June 24, 1937,<SUP>(16)</SUP> during consideration of the War
Department appropriation bill of 1938, the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 6304-06, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
For further discussion of the powers of the two Houses with
respect to revenue and appropriation measures, see Ch. 13,
supra. See also Chs. 32 and 33, infra, for discussion of House-
Senate relations, conferences, and related matters. And see
Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R.
6692, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker: <SUP>(17)</SUP> Is there objection? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Appropriations, I submit a motion, which I send to
the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the
[[Page 5161]]
bill H.R. 6692, the Military Appropriation Act, 1938, be
instructed not to agree to the Senate amendments to such bill
numbered 47 to 77, inclusive, and 80, and not to agree to the
amendment of the Senate amending the title of such bill.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution confers
upon the House and the Senate respectively certain exclusive
prerogatives. Among those reserved to the House by the Constitution
is the right to originate revenue bills, and from the beginning of
the Government the House has asserted and successfully maintained
that the right to originate revenue bills also involves the right
to initiate general appropriation bills. That has been the uniform
practice, and in keeping with that doctrine the House has
formulated the general appropriation bills since the establishment
of the Government. Of course, the right to originate general
appropriation bills necessarily includes the right to determine the
form and the manner in which they shall be presented, and from the
beginning the number and scope of the various annual supply bills
have been determined by the House with the acquiescence of the
Senate. Only on one or two rare occasions has this right of the
House been questioned, and in each such instance the Senate has
promptly disavowed any intention of infringing on the
constitutional prerogatives of the House and yielded without
contention.
The last instance was in the second session of the Sixty-second
Congress and was the occasion for an exhaustive study of the
subject by Hon. John Sharp Williams, formerly minority leader of
the House and at the time a member of the Senate, which was
published as a Senate document and which so conclusively confirmed
the contention of the House that its right to originate the general
supply bills and determine their form had not since been challenged
until the receipt just now of a message from the Senate informing
the House that the Senate has assumed the right to combine the two
War Department appropriation bills by attaching the nonmilitary
bill to the military bill as an amendment. . . .
The motion offered proposes [that House conferees be
instructed] to decline to agree to the amendment by which the two
bills have been merged or to any perfecting amendment which may
have been made to the text of the nonmilitary bill. Under such
instruction, House conferees will be at liberty to consider and
agree in full on the final text of the War Department appropriation
bill providing for military activities and the Senate may then
message over as a separate bill the nonmilitary bill, as amended by
the Senate, and the House will appoint conferees to meet with
Senate conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
bill as originated by the House of Representatives.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 13.2 The Senate receded from its amendments which proposed to
attach a nonmilitary appropriation bill to a military activities
appropriation bill and in so doing discussed the role of the Senate
in amending general appropriation bills of the House.
[[Page 5162]]
On July 1, 1937,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place in the Senate during consideration of a conference report on H.R.
6692 (appropriations for the military establishment):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. 6652-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of
the powers of the two Houses with respect to revenue and
appropriation measures, see Ch. 13, supra. See also Chs. 32 and
33, infra, for discussion of House-Senate relations,
conferences, and related matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Royal S.] Copeland [of New York]: Mr. President, I am
about to move the adoption of the report, but before doing so I
think an explanation should be made to the Senate. I am sure that
the matter which I shall present will be of interest to every
Senator, because it has to do with the rights of the Senate
regarding appropriation bills.
During the 15 years of my membership in the Senate, and for a
long time prior thereto, it has been the custom to embody all
appropriations for the Military Establishment in one bill. This
year the House . . . undertook to . . . separate the appropriations
and embody them in two bills, one devoted to the strictly military
activities . . . and a second to the nonmilitary activities of the
Government. . . .
The Senate Committee on Appropriations decided to blend the
bills and to present them to the Senate as they have been presented
through many years. Explanation was made to the Senate, and the
Senate, by unanimous vote, decided to accept and act upon the bill
in the usual form.
After discussing the response of the House, and noting the
existence of divergent views of the respective prerogatives of the
Houses relating to appropriation bills and their form, the Senator
stated:
Of course, we do not concede . . . that the Constitution
confers upon the House any such right to initiate general
appropriation bills. . . .
Mr. President, I am instructed by the Committee on
Appropriations to say that we challenge the contention that it is
the exclusive right of the House to determine the form and number
of appropriation bills.
The Senator, however, noted the existence of special circumstances
in the present case, and indicated he would therefore move that the
conference report be agreed to. The conference report was accordingly
agreed to. The following proceedings then took place:
Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate agree to the
amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate numbered
24, 26, and 79.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Copeland: I now move that the Senate recede from its
amendments still in disagreement, and its amendment to the title of
the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. [J. W.] Robinson [of Utah]: Mr. President, I should like to
ask the Senator from New York to tell the Senate the status of the
military appropriations, and the status of the nonmilitary
appropriations. In what condition does this action leave them?
[[Page 5163]]
Mr. Copeland: Mr. President, title I of the Senate bill, which
is the military part, has now been agreed to by both Houses, and on
my motion, just made, we receded from the amendments which covered
the nonmilitary appropriations.
I now wish to present to the Senate for immediate action House
bill 7493, as amended by the Senate committee and by the Senate to
cover the nonmilitary item, so that the House will be in the
position of having two bills, as it desires.
Mr. Robinson: In other words, that puts the Senate in the
position of completely yielding to the House?
Mr. Copeland: Yes.
Reference of Bill to Committee on Appropriations
Sec. 13.3 The Speaker announces to the House that he has referred a
general appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto to the
Committee on Appropriations
On July 2, 1945,<SUP>(19)</SUP> Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that he has referred
the bill H.R. 3368, the war agencies bill, with Senate amendments
thereto, to the Committee on Appropriations.
Parliamentarian's Note: While the Speaker has this discretionary
authority to refer Senate amendments to any bill under Rule XXIV clause
2, it is seldom exercised.
Conferees for Separate Chapters of Bill
Sec. 13.4 The Speaker has appointed a series of conferees for separate
chapters of an appropriation bill.
On July 27, 1955,<SUP>(1)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 101 Cong. Rec. 11686, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
7278) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints
the following conferees: Messrs. Cannon and Taber; and on chapter
I, Messrs. Whitten, Marshall, and H. Carl Anderson; on chapter II,
Messrs. Preston, Thomas, and Bow; on chapter III, Messrs. Mahon,
Sheppard, Sikes, Wigglesworth, Scrivner, and Ford; on chapter IV,
Messrs. Passman, Gary, and Wigglesworth.
[[Page 5164]]
Sec. 13.5 In appointing conferees on the general appropriation bill,
1951, the Speaker appointed a set of conferees for each chapter of
the bill, and four Members to sit in the conference on all
chapters.
On Aug. 7, 1950,<SUP>(2)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, and the following proceedings ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11894, 11895, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill H.R.
7786, an act making appropriations for the support of the
Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and ask for a conference with the Senate.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints
the following conferees.
Managers on the part of the House:
Messrs. Cannon, Rabaut, Norrell, Taber, and on Chap. I, Messrs.
Bates of Kentucky, Yates, Furcolo, Stockman, and Wilson of Indiana;
on Chap. II, Messrs. McGrath, Kirwan, Andrews, Canfield, and
Scrivner; on Chap. III, Messrs. Rooney, Flood, Preston, Stefan, and
Clevenger. . . .
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Will the chairman take a minute to
explain how the conferees will operate under this arrangement?
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we expect to go to conference tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock. The bill will be taken up by chapters
seriatim. As a chapter is reached the entire subcommittee which
wrote that particular chapter, and which therefore is more familiar
with it than anyone else on the committee, along with the other
managers on the part of the House, will take up the chapter with
the Senate conferees.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: This means, then, that the four
Members who were first named will sit through the entire
conference.
Mr. Cannon: They are the ranking members on the central
subcommittee which reported the bill to the House and will sit with
the respective subcommittees throughout the conference.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: And the Members who are assigned to a
particular chapter will receive notification as their particular
chapter is approached?
Mr. Cannon: When a chapter is taken up, the conferees on the
next succeeding chapter will be notified. We hope to proceed with
as little delay as possible, subject always to the approval of the
managers on the part of the Senate.
[[Page 5165]]
Agreement as to Selection of Conference Chairman
Sec. 13.6 An agreement was made between the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations with respect to selecting a conference
chairman.
On July 19, 1962,<SUP>(3)</SUP> Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 14133, 14134, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, each branch of Congress in conference has group
autonomy. The selection of the conference chairman is procedural
for orderly functioning of the conference. Realizing this, the
question of the selection of the conference chairman for the
present session of Congress shall be left to the decision of the
two subcommittee chairmen.
It is agreed by the joint committee on behalf of the full
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives that for this session only the subcommittee
chairmen of each body shall decide who shall act as chairman of the
conference. It is further agreed that the chairmen of the Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations appoint representatives of
each committee to serve as a joint committee to study all the
issues involved and to report in January 1963 their
recommendations.
Appropriations on Legislative Bills--Duty of Conferees
Sec. 13.7 Conferees of the House may not in conference agree to a
Senate amendment providing for an appropriation upon any other than
a general appropriation bill without first having secured specific
authority from the House to do so.
On May 22, 1936,<SUP>(4)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker Joseph W.
Byrns, of Tennessee, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 9496) to protect the United
States against loss in the delivery through the mails of checks in
payment of benefits provided for by laws administered by the
Veterans' Administration, and I ask unanimous consent that the
statement may be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order on the conference report that it includes an appropriation
which is contrary to the rules of the House and the Senate. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman
of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a
conference report signed by the conferees on the part of the Senate
and the House. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the
point of order that the conference report is out of order because
the conferees on the part of the House
[[Page 5166]]
in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate providing an
appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
Senate amendment no. 1 contains the following language:
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance,
from time to time, to the Postmaster General, from the
appropriation contained in the Supplemental Appropriation Act,
fiscal year 1936, approved February 11, 1936, for
``administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment act,
1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937'', such sums as are
certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the
expenses of the Post Office Department in connection with the
handling of the bonds issued hereunder. Such bonds--
This amendment also contains the following language:
The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the
Postmaster General, from the aforesaid appropriation contained
in said supplemental appropriation act, for such postage and
registry fees as may be required in connection with such
transmittal.
Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of
Representatives, reads as follows:
No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill
which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of
rule XXI, if said amendment had originated in the House, nor
any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be
agreed to by the managers on the part of the House unless
specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be first
given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.
It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the
House in agreeing in conference to Senate amendment no. 1 violated
the provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an
appropriation.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, if the conference report is out of
order, how can we consider it?
The Speaker: The amendments are before the House and must be
disposed of.
Mr. Snell: I supposed that the whole report went out.
The Speaker: The report goes out, but that leaves the
amendments before the House, and some action must be taken on them.
It is for the House to say what action it will take. . . .
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan] (interrupting the reading of
the Senate amendment): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, supplementing what the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Snell] has said, an attempt was made to get this bill
before the House by calling up the conference report and the
conference report was held out of order. No further action to get
the bill before the House has been taken. There has been no request
to bring it up in any other way
[[Page 5167]]
except through the conference report, and the Speaker, very
properly I think, has ruled that the conference report is out of
order.
The Speaker: The conference report was called up by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead]. The conference report has been
held to be out of order, which leaves the Senate amendments before
the House for consideration. The House must take some action on
them.
Mr. Mapes: How do the amendments get before the House for
consideration?
The Speaker: They are called up by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Mead].
Mr. Mapes: No attempt has been made by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Mead], as I understand, to call them up.
The Speaker: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman from
Michigan, reads from section 3257 of Cannon's Precedents:
When a conference report is ruled out of order the bill and
amendments are again before the House as when first presented,
and motions relating to amendments and conference are again in
order.
The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. Mapes: That seems to cover the matter.
Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lehlbach: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate
privileged?
The Speaker: After the stage of disagreement has been reached
they are. For this reason it is necessary that the House take some
action upon the amendments at this time.
Sec. 13.8 Where House conferees agreed to a Senate amendment providing
that ``benefits shall be paid from the civil service retirement and
disability fund'', such an agreement constituted a violation of
Rule XX clause 2, and was ruled out on a point of order.
On Oct. 4, 1962,<SUP>(5)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker pro
tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal
rates, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the
statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu
of the report.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object and I do so in order to make a parliamentary inquiry, I
desire to make a point of order against considerations of the
conference report. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against
consideration of the conference report, and I ask to be recognized
at the proper time to make that point of order.
[[Page 5168]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the Clerk reports the title of
the bill, the gentleman may be recognized.
The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa makes a point
of order. The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the
conference report on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule
XX of the House rules.
Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:
Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment
shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every
such amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the
Senate provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:
Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the
benefits made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by
reason of the enactment of this part shall be paid from the
civil service retirement and disability fund.
The words ``shall be paid from the civil service retirement
and disability fund'' constitute an appropriation within the
meaning of clause 2 of rule XX. . . .
Inasmuch as the House, when it sent the bill to conference,
did not give specific authority to agree to such amendment I,
therefore, submit that it is not in order for such language to
be included in the conference report. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Murray] desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Murray: I do not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross]
makes a point of order that the language contained on page 110,
section 1104, line 12, ``shall be paid from the civil service
retirement and disability fund'' is in violation of clause 2, rule
XX.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 13.9 A point of order that House conferees had violated clause 2,
Rule XX by agreeing to a provision in a Senate amendment to a House
legislative bill, directing the use of funds already appropriated
for a new purpose, was conceded and the conference report was ruled
out of order.
On Nov. 29, 1979,<SUP>(6)</SUP> a conference report on H.R. 2676
(EPA research authorization for appropriations, fiscal year 1980)
authorizing appropriations for environmental research and development
was called up for consideration. Included in the conference report was
a provision originally contained in a Senate amendment, directing that
funds appropriated
[[Page 5169]]
pursuant to the authorization be obligated and expended on a certain
project not specifically funded by the appropriation law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 34113, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair, noting that the appropriation bill for the activity
concerned had already been enacted for the year in question, ruled that
the provision at that time constituted an appropriation on a
legislative bill and could not, under clause 2 of Rule XX, be agreed to
by House conferees. The proceedings were as follows:
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order against the conference report.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman from
Massachusetts will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of rule XXI prohibits
committees without proper jurisdiction from reporting measures
carrying appropriations. Interpretation of the rule has held that
language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an
appropriation already made for one purpose to another is not in
order. This has been sustained numerous times, but it is very
clearly stated in a ruling on August 11, 1921, and is a precedent
that is nearly identical to the issue that is before us now.
In the paragraph authorizing appropriations for the health and
ecological effects activity of the water quality research and
development program House conferees on H.R. 2676 agreed to retain
in the bill the following provision added by the Senate:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
paragraph $900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold
Climate Research program through the Environmental Protection
Agency's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
The 1980 Environmental Protection Agency budget request did not
include any funding for cold climate research. The 1980
appropriation of EPA's research and development programs also did
not include any funding for cold climate research.
The proviso amounts to a diversion of funds previously
appropriated and violates clause 5, rule XXI.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be sustained.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Fuqua) wish to speak on the point of order?
Mr. [Don] Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
In this instance, the conference report containing the Senate
amendment having been ruled out of order because containing an
appropriation, the manager of the conference report moved to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment merely encouraging,
but not mandating, the use of funds already appropriated for a new
purpose.<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 125 Cong. Rec. 34114, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5170]]
Sec. 13.10 The rule restricting the authority of conferees in agreeing
to appropriation language in Senate amendments does not apply to
language in Senate bills.
On Jan. 25, 1972,<SUP>(9)</SUP> a conference report on S. 2819 (the
foreign military assistance authorization) was under consideration
which contained an additional provision beyond the scope of the
differences committed to conference.<SUP>(10)</SUP> The Speaker, Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, in overruling a point of order against the report,
noted that the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order
against the inclusion of such additional matter, and that clauses 2 and
3 of Rule XX (restricting the authority of House conferees from
agreeing to appropriation or nongermane language, respectively, in
Senate amendments) are not applicable where a Senate bill and House
amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings were as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 118 Cong. Rec. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Inclusion of such matter violates Rule XXVIII clause 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a
point of order against the consideration of the conference report.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the grounds that
certain provisions of the bill are not germane and exceed the
authority of the conference. I point specifically, Mr. Speaker, to
the language to be found on page 13 of the report, section 658:
Sec. 658. Limitation on Use of Funds.--
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of
the funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act
or the Foreign Military Sales Act shall be obligated or
expended until the Comptroller General of the United States
certifies to the Congress that all funds previously
appropriated and thereafter impounded during the fiscal year
1971 for programs and activities administered by or under the
direction of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare have been released for obligation and
expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this language goes far beyond the
scope of the legislation, far beyond any intent of the Congress It
is neither germane nor does it come within the scope of the
legislation. . . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The rule is
broad and covers the objections made by the gentleman from Iowa.
Last November the House sent to conference two foreign aid bills,
one economic and one military, which passed the Senate. At that
time the House struck out all after the enacting clauses of both
bills and inserted in lieu thereof the complete text of H.R. 9910,
which had passed the House last August.
All the provisions of both the House and Senate bills that were
in disagree
[[Page 5171]]
ment were considered in conference. The House having adopted a rule
to send these two Senate bills (to conference) the amendments to
which the gentleman from Iowa has objected automatically became
House amendments and the provisions from the Senate bill are no
longer subject to a point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa has raised a point of order against the
conference report on the ground that the House conferees have
exceeded their authority by including in the conference report
provisions not germane or not in either the Senate bill or the
House amendment and agreed to an appropriation in violation of
clause 2, rule XX. That rule provides in relevant part:
No amendment of the Senate . . . providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House.
The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was
sent to conference, with a House amendment thereto. The rule is
restricted in its application to Senate amendments, and thus is not
applicable in the present situation.
The Chair also points out that the resolution under which this
conference report is being considered specifically waives points of
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The action of the conferees in adding the language in section
658 of the conference report is protected by this waiver of points
of order.
For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 13.11 Clause 2 of Rule XX which precludes House conferees from
agreeing to Senate amendments providing for appropriations in a
conference report absent specific authority applies only to Senate
amendments which are sent to conference and not to appropriations
contained in Senate legislative bills.
On June 30, 1976,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the Speaker <SUP>(12)</SUP>
overruled a point of order against a conference report containing a
provision permitting a new use of funds in an existing revolving fund,
even though such provision constituted an appropriation on a
legislative bill, since the provision had been contained in the Senate
bill and since clause 2 of Rule XX is not applicable where a Senate
bill and House amendments are committed to conference. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 21632, 21633, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3295) to extend the
authorization for annual contributions under the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937, to extend certain
[[Page 5172]]
housing programs under the National Housing Act, and for other
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
Mr. [Garry] Brown [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against the conference report on S. 3295 on the basis that
the House managers exceeded their authority by agreeing to two
matters not in the original House amendment to the Senate bill and
which violates clause 2, rule XX, of the House Rules and Precedents
of the House. Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:
Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation
bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the
House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment
shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every
such amendment.
The Senate-passed bill contains section 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which
in effect provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA
insurance funds to honor claims made eligible for payment by the
provisions of section 9 generally. These amendments are to section
518(b) of the National Housing Act and relate to sections 203 and
221 housing programs for which the authority of the Secretary of
HUD to pay claims related to certain structural defects has expired
if the claims were not filed by March 1976.
Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include identical language which
states as follows:
Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from
the insurance fund chargeable for insurance benefits on the
mortgage covering the structure to which the expenditures
relate.
The words ``Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be
made from the insurance fund'' constitute an appropriation within
the meaning of clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents under clause
5, rule XXI, it is clear that payments out of funds such as the FHA
insurance fund are within the meaning of the term ``appropriation''
and that the action taken by the House managers is violative of
clause 2, rule XX.
In support of this point of order, I cite the ruling of the
Chair on a point of order raised by H.R. Gross on October 1, 1962,
to the conference report on H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed to
in that report provided that--
The benefits made payable . . . by reason of enactment of
this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement and
disability fund.
Inasmuch as when the House agreed to go to conference, it did
not give specific authority to agree to such an amendment. I
therefore submit that it is not in order for such language to be
included in the conference report.
The FHA insurance funds are designed to provide the reserves
for payments on defaulted mortgages and for the operation of HUD
related to the various insurance programs and any diversion of the
use of such funds such as for payment for defects in the structure
would violate clause 5 of rule XXI. In further support of this
point of order, and specifically on the point that the provisions
constitute a diversion of funds for a separate purpose not within
the intention of the legisla
[[Page 5173]]
tion establishing the fund, I cite the ruling of the Chair on
October 5, 1972, which holds that an amendment allowing for the use
of highway trust fund moneys to purchase buses,
would seem to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that it would
divert or actually reappropriate for a new purpose funds which
have been appropriated and allocated and are in the pipeline
for purposes specified by the law under the original 1956 act.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
conference report on this basis.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is
the one who sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Gross in the
case which I have referred to.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to anticipate a ruling against my
point of order, but if that should be the case, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest we are making a mockery of the rules of the House.
Since some of my comrades may not be aware of it, the rules of
the House in clause 5, rule XXI, provide:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. . . .
Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House
in its rules cannot have extraterritorial effect or extra body
effect, in order to protect the House from having its rules
violated by the Senate, we adopted clause 2 of rule XX which
related to action that the Senate might take that would be
violative of the House rules. But the very fact that this is not a
Senate amendment on a House bill is insignificant if the rules of
the House are going to have any real meaning because what we are
saying is any time we want to violate the House rules, we can have
the rule provide that after consideration of the bill it shall be
in order for the such-and-such Senate bill to be taken from the
Speaker's desk and everything after the enacting clause stricken
and apply the House language. . . .
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Speaker, clause 2
of rule XX of the rules of the House makes out of order any
provision in a Senate amendment which provides for an
appropriation. However, the rule does not address itself to
provisions in Senate bills. The conferees accepted the provision in
question, without change, from a Senate bill and not from a Senate
amendment. Therefore, no violation of the House rules is involved
even if the provision is considered to be an appropriation.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order against
the conference report, referring to the language of rule XX, clause
2, which places certain restrictions on the managers on the part of
the House in a conference with the Senate.
The Chair has ruled on this matter before.
On January 25, 1972, the Chair ruled in connection with a point
of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the
conference report on a foreign military as
[[Page 5174]]
sistance authorization bill (S. 2819) on the ground that the House
conferees had exceeded their authority by including in the
conference report an appropriation entirely in conflict with clause
2, rule XX. That rule provides, in relevant part, that ``no
amendment of the Senate''--that is the important language--no
amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon any
bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by
the managers on the part of the House.
The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was
sent to conference with a House amendment thereto. The rule is
restricted in its application to Senate amendments and, thus, is
not applicable in the present situation.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
After the above ruling, Mr. Brown pointed to the following language
in the conference report as representing, in effect, an agreement by
the Senate ``with a Senate amendment'':
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment.
The Speaker responded that a conference report on a Senate bill
which recommends that the Senate concur in the House amendment with an
amendment does not place before the House a Senate amendment against
which a point of order can be raised under clause 2 of Rule XX, since
the conference report represents only a proposed compromise and not a
Senate amendment originally committed to conference.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 21634, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.12 Although Rule XXI clause 5 permits a point of order against
an appropriation in a legislative bill or amendment to be raised
``at any time'' during the initial consideration of the bill or
amendment under the five-minute rule in the House, a point of order
against similar language permitted to remain in the House version
and included in a conference report on that bill will not lie,
since the only rule prohibiting such inclusion (Rule XX clause 2)
is limited to language originally contained in a Senate amendment
where House conferees have not been specifically authorized to
agree thereto.
The following proceedings took place on May 1, 1975,<SUP>(14)</SUP>
during consideration of a conference report, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R.
[[Page 5175]]
6096) to authorize funds for humanitarian assistance and evacuation
programs in Vietnam and to clarify restrictions on the availability
of funds for the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Indochina, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a point of order against the conference report.
The Speaker [Carl Albert, of Oklahoma]: The gentlewoman will
state it.
Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the conference report
in the last sentence refers to evacuation programs authorized by
this act. It permits a waiver of a series of laws for the purpose
of allowing those evacuation programs to take place.
In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section 3 dealt with evacuation
programs referred to in section 2 of the bill and waived the same
series of laws with respect thereto. In order for section 3 to be
considered, it required a rule from the Rules Committee. And a rule
was granted waiving points of order against section 3 of the bill.
But section 7 of the conference report, in speaking of evacuation
programs authorized by the entire act and not just by one section,
exceeds the scope of section 3 of the bill and exceeds the waiver
that was permitted under the rule. It therefore violates rule XXI,
clause 5, and violates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits House
conferees from accepting a Senate amendment providing for an
appropriation on a nonappropriation bill in excess of the rules of
the House. . . .
Mr. Morgan: . . . The point of order has no standing. Section 3
of the House bill and section 7 of the conference report referred
to use of funds of the Armed Forces of the United States for the
protection and evacuation of certain persons from South Vietnam.
The language of the conference report does not increase funds
available for that purpose. Both the House bill and the conference
report simply removed limitations on the use of funds from the DOD
budget. These limitations were not applicable to the funds
authorized in H.R. 6096. The scope of the waiver is the same in the
conference report and the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, the changes in language are merely conforming
changes. Section 2 of the House bill was a section which authorized
the evacuation programs in the House bill. The conference version
contains the evacuation programs authority in several sections plus
reference to the entire act rather than to one specific section. .
. .
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentlewoman from New York makes the point of order that
section 7 of the conference report constitutes an appropriation on
a legislative bill in violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to which the
House conferees were not authorized to agree pursuant to clause 2,
rule XX.
The Chair would first point out that the provisions of clause
2, rule XX, preclude House conferees from agreeing to a Senate
amendment containing an appropriation on a legislative bill, and do
not restrict their authority to consider an appropriation which
might have been contained in the House-passed version. In this
instance, the conferees have recommended language which is
[[Page 5176]]
virtually identical to section 3 of the House bill, and they have
not agreed to a Senate amendment containing an appropriation.
Therefore, clause 2, rule XX, is not applicable to the present
conference report.
While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a point of order to be raised
against an appropriation in a legislative bill ``at any time''
consistent with the orderly consideration of the bill to which
applied--Cannon's VII, sections 2138-39--the Chair must point out
that H.R. 6096 was considered in the House under the terms of House
Resolution 409 which waived points of order against section 3 of
the House bill as constituting an appropriation of available funds
for a new purpose. . . .
The gentlewoman from New York also has in effect made the point
of order that section 7 of the conference report goes beyond the
issues in difference between the two Houses committed to conference
in violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
In the House-passed bill, section 3 contained waivers of
certain provisions of law in order to make available funds already
appropriated to the Department of Defense to be used for the Armed
Forces in ``evacuation programs referred to in section 2 of the
act.'' The conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law
shall apply to ``evacuation programs authorized by this act.''
In the opinion of the Chair, a conforming change in phraseology
in a conference report from language contained in the House or
Senate version to achieve consistency in the language thereof,
absent proof that the effect of that change is to broaden the scope
of the language beyond that contained in either version, does not
necessarily render the conference report subject to a point of
order. In this instance, it appears to the Chair that the only
effect of the language in the conference report was to accomplish
the same result that would have been reached by section 3 of the
House bill, namely to remove certain limitations on the use of
funds in the Defense budget for military evacuation programs under
this bill.
The Chair therefore holds that the conferees have not exceeded
their authority and overrules the point of order.
Amendments to Senate Amendments
Sec. 13.13 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill
proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in
the House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments.
The following proceedings took place on Feb. 8,
1937,<SUP>(15)</SUP> during consideration of H.R. 3587, a deficiency
appropriations bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which
I send to the Clerk's desk. . . .
Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a pref
[[Page 5177]]
erential motion, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ellenbogen moves that the House recede and concur in Senate
amendment no. 9.
Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: <SUP>(16)</SUP> The gentleman from
Virginia demands a division of the question. The question is, Shall
the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken, and the motion to recede was agreed to.
Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Woodrum moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter
inserted by said amendment insert the following: ``or of any
appropriation or other funds of any executive department or
independent executive agency shall be used after June 30, 1937,
to pay the compensation of any person detailed or loaned for
service in connection with any investigation or inquiry
undertaken by any committee of either House of Congress under
special resolution thereof.''
Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
motion of the gentleman from Virginia violates the rules of the
House in that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Senate
amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because
it contains legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Malley: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is not germane, since it
limits the Senate amendment by date.
The Speaker Pro Tempore. The Chair will state that it deals
with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate
amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
Sec. 13.14 Where the Senate attaches to an appropriation bill a
legislative amendment, it is in order in the House to concur with a
perfecting amendment provided such amendment does not broaden the
scope of the legislation in the Senate amendment.
On June 15, 1933,<SUP>(17)</SUP> during consideration of Senate
amendments to the independent offices appropriation
bill,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 77 Cong. Rec. 6150, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 5389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 5178]]
Amendment No. 30: On page 57, after line 14, insert:
``Sec. 6. After the enactment of this act the Postmaster
General is directed to suspend payments upon any air mail or
ocean mail contract to any individuals, companies, or
corporations which, singly or in combination with other
individuals, companies, or corporations receiving a subsidy,
pay any salary or salary combined with bonus to any officer,
agent, or employee in excess of a salary of $17,500. . . .''
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
recede and concur with an amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Woodrum moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30, and
agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the
matter inserted by said amendment insert the following:
``Sec. 6. Hereafter the Postmaster General shall not award
any air mail contract or any ocean mail contract under the
Merchant Marine Act of 1928 to any individuals, companies, or
corporations which, singly or in combination with other
individuals, companies, or corporations pay any salary, or
salary combined with bonus, to any officer, agent, or employee
in excess of $17,500. . . .''
Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The amendment as I heard it read contains the word
``hereafter'', making this permanent law, forever. I have no
particular objection to the language contained, that makes it for
the duration of the life of this appropriation bill, but it might
not be wise, under certain circumstances, to make it permanent,
forever. The word ``hereafter'' makes it legislation on an
appropriation bill, which makes it permanent legislation.
Mr. Woodrum: The original text makes it permanent legislation.
Mr. Goss: But it reads ``after the enactment of this act.''
The Speaker: <SUP>(19)</SUP> We are considering the Senate
amendment. The entire amendment of the Senate is legislation which
the House may now perfect by any germane amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goss: I will reserve it for the moment, to hear further
explanation. I do not want to see it made permanent law.
Mr. Woodrum: The only change which the House makes in it is the
very proper change not to undertake to make this retroactive to
apply to contracts. They have postoffice contracts that have
already been made in good faith, but it does provide----
Mr. Goss: For all time.
Mr. Woodrum: Yes; until Congress changes it, because the
original language was for all time. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order made by the
gentleman from Connecticut.
Sec. 13.15 In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined
within the limits of the amount set by the original bill and the
Senate amendment.
On June 20, 1932,<SUP>(20)</SUP> during consideration of H.R.
11267, the
[[Page 5179]]
Economy Committee amendment to the legislative appropriation bill, a
Senate amendment was under consideration which provided for an 11
percent reduction in all government salaries in excess of $2,500. An
amendment was offered proposing to reduce salaries by a graduated scale
with a minimum exemption of $1,200. A point of order was made as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 13522-25, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that the subject matter contained in the
gentleman's motion at this time is not proper in that there is
nothing before the House at this time which shows a change of
attitude on the part of the House in its action on the question of
salary reduction. There are two propositions before the House. One
is the House bill providing for a reduction with a $2,500
exemption, and the other is the Senate so-called furlough plan. The
gentleman seeks to concur in the Senate plan with an amendment, and
the matter in the amendment is not germane to that plan. The
gentleman's motion is beyond the province of conferees. The subject
matter contained in the motion is an entirely new proposition. If
conferees have failed to agree on either the House bill or Senate
bill, then they should be discharged. If the gentleman seeks to
carry out a reduction plan, then I submit that the House has not
indicated by vote or otherwise that it recedes from its original
position. What the gentleman is seeking to do is to get legislative
action de novo on a matter which has already been passed on by the
House. When we come to that point--enter on our own initiative or
from the Senate--new conferees representing the views of the House
should be and would be appointed. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the
view of the House must first be presented by friends of the
proposition to the Senate conferees. There is no indication in the
report or otherwise that the House bill was actually sponsored in
conference by the conferees on the part of the House, and I submit
that at this stage we can not legislate de novo in order to carry
out the personal views or preference of the conferees. The House
should at least be given the opportunity to express itself on its
own bill. In this roundabout method the House is compelled to take
other action without first knowing what the attitude of the other
body on the proposition may be.
Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I believe
the Chair should hold that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama is out of order, because the amendment goes beyond the
range of difference between the action of the House and the Senate.
The furlough plan incorporated in the bill by the Senate and the
salary-reduction plan as passed by the House contain no salary
reductions in salaries below $2,500 per year. I believe on that
point alone the amendment is not germane, and therefore it is not
in order, as the conferees have exceeded their authority.
Mr. [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I think the
Chair has ample precedent for overruling the point of order raised
by the gentleman
[[Page 5180]]
from Wisconsin, because, in the first place we are not dealing with
a conference report, and in the second place, I direct the
attention of the Speaker to the fact that anything that is germane
is permissible to be written in an amendment such as I have
offered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore [William B. Bankhead, of Alabama]: The
Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaGuardia) interposes a point
of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. McDuffie) to the Senate proposal, upon the ground that
it does not affirmatively appear that the House conferees really
took into consideration the action and voice of the House in the
conference. That, of course, is a matter entirely beyond the
province of the Chair, and is a matter of speculation, necessarily.
The Chair, therefore, overrules that point of order.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Schafer) raised the point of
order that the provisions embodied in the motion of the gentleman
from Alabama to recede and concur with an amendment to the Senate
amendment was beyond the limits fixed in either the House bill or
the Senate amendment. The Parliamentarian has furnished the Chair
with a syllabus of an opinion by Chairman Hepburn, of Iowa, made on
February 26, 1902, which may be found in Hinds' Precedents (vol. 5,
sec. 6187). It is as follows: ``In amending a Senate amendment the
House is not confined within the limits of amount set by the
original bill and the Senate amendment.'' The Chair thinks that
that decision disposes of the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Wisconsin. The Chair desires to say in passing upon
these points of order that in cases of this kind the only
requirement is that the amendment proposed in the motion to recede
and concur with an amendment must be germane to the Senate
amendment. This question arose on May 3, 1922, when Mr. Speaker
Gillett, in overruling a point of order similar to this, held that
to a Senate amendment providing a new method of taxation in the
District of Columbia and revising the fiscal relationship of the
District of Columbia and the United States with other incidental
propositions an amendment proposing a different scheme is germane,
although different in detail.
The Chair thinks that these decisions fully cover points of
order raised by the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from
Wisconsin, and therefore overrules the points of order.
Similarly, on June 28, 1932, <SUP>(1)</SUP> the following
proceedings took place during consideration of the Navy appropriation
bill: <SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at pp. 14207, 14208.
2. H.R. 11452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 16: Page 23, line 17, strike out
``$1,014,250'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,191,850.''
Mr. [William A.] Ayres (of Kansas): Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House recede and concur with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ayres moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment
No. 16
[[Page 5181]]
with the following amendment: In lieu of the sum proposed by
said amendment insert the following: ``$1,157,535 (none of
which shall be available for increased pay for making aerial
flights by nonflying officers or observers except eight
officers above the grade of lieutenant commander, to be
selected by the Secretary of the Navy).''
Mr. LaGuardia: I make the point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kansas is beyond the power and scope
of the conferees; that it brings in entirely new matter, that the
difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is simply one
of amount, and we can not at this stage of the proceedings
legislate on the bill.
The Speaker: On the grounds the gentleman makes his point of
order the Chair will overrule it. The question is on the motion to
concur with an amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: Let the Chair say in connection with that point of
order that if the gentleman from New York had made the point of
order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the Senate
amendment, the Chair thinks it would have been sufficient, but the
gentleman from New York said it was beyond the jurisdiction of the
conferees, and the motion to concur with an amendment is not
subject to that point of order.
Point of Order Against Appropriations in Senate Bill
Sec. 13.16 A point of order under the rule barring appropriations in a
legislative bill may be raised against an item of appropriation in
a Senate bill.
On July 30, 1957, <SUP>(4)</SUP> during consideration of S. 1865, a
bill establishing an airways modernization board and to provide for the
development and modernization of the national system of navigation and
traffic control facilities to serve present and future needs of civil
and military aviation, a provision granting authority to transfer
``unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available,'' was ruled out by Chairman George H. Mahon, of Texas, as an
appropriation reported from a nonappropriating committee in violation
of clause 4, rule XXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language having been stricken from the Senate bill pursuant to
the point of order, that fact was reported by Chairman Mahon to the
House.<SUP>(5)</SUP> The language stricken from the bill on the point
of order was treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so
engrossed and messaged to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at pp. 13181, 13182, July 31, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Rule Waiving Points of Order
Sec. 13.17 A resolution is set forth below waiving points of
[[Page 5182]]
order against a conference report on a general appropriation bill,
and making in order a motion to recede from disagreement and to
concur therein with an amendment.
On Dec. 23, 1963, <SUP>(6)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
Note: The waiver of points of order against the amendment
was necessary because the language of the amendment would have
been subject to the point of order that it constituted further
legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I present a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 600) from the Committee on Rules and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Speaker: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The resolution will be referred to
the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any
point of order the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499)
making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes,
and that during the consideration of the amendment of the
Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order to
consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a
motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the part of the House
to recede and concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with
an amendment.
Suspension of Rules for Matters Not in Disagreement
Sec. 13.18 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions
of the bill, the House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed
a new bill containing matters in the original bill not in
controversy.
On July 2, 1942, <SUP>(8)</SUP> the Department of Agriculture
appropriation bill for fiscal 1943 was passed in the House in the
following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 5960, 5961, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the
Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for
other purposes.
The Speaker: <SUP>(9)</SUP> Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second
be considered as ordered.
[[Page 5183]]
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Tarver)?
There was no objection.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal to enact for the present fiscal
year 1943, the provisions of H.R. 6709, the Agricultural
appropriation bill, insofar as those provisions have been agreed
upon by the House and the Senate, and with respect to the
appropriations for the farm tenant land purchase program and for
the Farm Security Administration, which are in disagreement, the
provisions of the bill are for expenditures by the Farm Security
Administration for these purposes for the next 60 days; that is,
for the months of July and August, which will be authorized upon
the same bases proportionate for the time involved as the
expenditures for those purposes were authorized in the Agricultural
Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1942, with the proviso that
any amount expended by the Farm Security Administration for these
purposes during the months of July and August shall be charged
against whatever amounts are finally appropriated by the Congress
to the uses of the Farm Security Administration for these
objectives.
As I said, all of the provisions of the bill, and all of the
limitations in the bill so far as there does not exist disagreement
between the House and Senate with reference thereto, are proposed
to be enacted. The proviso with regard to Commodity Credit
Corporation funds is to be enacted except as the Senate amendments
thereto in disagreement are involved.
There is also a further proviso in title II of the bill which I
have just sent to the Clerk's desk, which would validate
expenditures upon the bases which I have described to and including
the 1st day of July.
H.R. 7349 passed in the House. Subsequently, various Members
discussed the consequences of the bill's passage. Some of the remarks
are as follows:
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether or not the
majority leader wants to say anything about the situation that is
now in abeyance for the information of the House?
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: I have nothing to
advise the House about at this time. The Senate has adjourned, and
I have been informed that they sent the bill which passed the House
a short time ago to the committee.
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection?
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, as I understand the parliamentary situation,
as far as the appropriation bill is concerned, it is this. The
House passed the regular Department of Agriculture appropriation
bill. It went to the Senate. The Senate placed amendments. The two
Houses were in disagreement and conferees were appointed. That
appropriation bill is in conference. This afternoon certain members
of the Appropriations Committee who happened to be the conferees on
the agriculture bill brought in another and different appropriation
[[Page 5184]]
bill.<SUP>(10)</SUP> It was passed under suspension of the rules,
with a new number. It had no connection with the bill in
conference. It was an independent bill. After that bill passed the
House and went to the Senate, the Senate recognized it as a new
appropriation bill, which it is, and treated it according to the
rules of the Senate, and referred it to the Appropriations
Committee of the Senate for consideration. The Senate conferees had
no part in framing the new bill. So that today the regular
agriculture appropriation bill is in conference between the two
Houses. Today's House action has had no effect on the conference
committee. Another appropriation bill covering much of the same
matter has been referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 7349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: I think the gentleman's statement fairly
presents the picture except--I would not want to take issue--but I
would want to enlarge or express my own views on one observation
which the gentleman made--that it had no relationship to the bill
in conference. It at least had an attempted relationship.
Mr. Mirchener: Yes; the two bills deal with the same subject
matter, but one bill was the legitimate child of the rules of the
House and the Appropriations Committee. The other bill was not.
Mr. McCormack: I am not taking issue with my friend, but I will
certainly say there was an attempted relationship. At least the
House in its own way attempted to meet the legislative situation
that exists.
Amendment by Concurrent Resolution
Sec. 13.19 Items in an appropriation bill not in disagreement between
the two Houses, and hence not committed to the conferees, have been
changed through consideration by unanimous consent of a concurrent
resolution directing the changes in the enrollment of the bill.
On July 23, 1962, <SUP>(11)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 14400-03, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
unanimous agreement of last Friday, I call up for consideration a
House concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 505
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be
authorized and directed in the enrollment of the bill H.R.
11038 to make the following changes in the engrossed House
bill:
(1) Page 2, strike out lines 13 to 16, inclusive. . . .
(28) Page 14, strike out lines 4 to 7, inclusive.
(29) Page 14, strike out lines 17 to 21, inclusive.
Mr. Thomas (interrupting reading of the House concurrent
resolution): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the resolution be dispensed with, I shall attempt to
explain what it is.
The Speaker: <SUP>(12)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5185]]
There was no objection.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled this deals with
what we call the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1962
When the supplemental left the House it had 55 items carrying about
$447 million, which was a reduction, in round figures, of $100
million under the budget, a reduction of about 20 percent.
It went to the other body and that body added some 29 items,
increasing the amount over the House by $112 million, which made a
round figure of about $560 million.
We bring to you two items, one a concurrent resolution and the
other a conference report. First, why the concurrent resolution? We
put in the concurrent resolution some 29 items which were
originally in the supplemental, but those 29 items are a
reduction--follow me now--below the figure that was in the
supplemental when it left the House and the figure when it left the
Senate.
It is a complete reduction and a change. It is in the
concurrent resolution because it could not be in the conference
report, and the reason it could not be in the conference report is
because it is a reduction in those amounts. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. <SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The second supplemental appropriation bill,
H.R. 11038, was passed by the House on Mar. 30, 1962; by the
Senate, amended, on Apr. 6. The conference report was not filed
until July 20. Since fiscal year 1962 expired on June 30, the
need for some of the funds in the bill had dissipated. To
eliminate the sums no longer required and not in disagreement,
the concurrent resolution was agreed to.