[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-3]
[Page 4979-5007]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized
The Constitution <SUP>(7)</SUP> states: ``No money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
Appropriation bills are the device through which money is permitted to
be ``drawn from the Treasury'' for expenditure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Art. I Sec. 9 clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But before a general appropriation bill may appropriate funds for
particular purposes, such purposes must be authorized by law. Thus, an
appropriation for a project or activity not authorized by law is not in
order on a general appropriation bill, and a point of order may be made
against an appropriation that violates this requirement.<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation
on general appropriation bills is found in Rule XXI clause 2,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981). The application of this
rule is discussed in detail in Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be seen that every ``authorization'' for an appropriation is
only one step in the process by which funds ultimately may become
available, since it contemplates subsequent action through
appropriation measures.<SUP>(9)</SUP> Of course, the House may decline
to appropriate funds for particular purposes, even though authorization
has been given for such purposes.<SUP>(10)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Parliamentarian's Note: It follows, for example, that
``authorizing'' language does not itself constitute ``new
spending authority'' which would prohibit the consideration of
a bill under Sec. 401 of the Congressional Budget Act. Where
the provision in question either impliedly contemplates further
recourse to the appropriations process, or makes express
reference to the appropriations process when required by
Sec. 401, such consideration is not precluded. (Note: The
Budget Act is necessarily given only limited treatment herein;
see the remarks in Sec. 1, supra, as to the scope of this
article.)
10. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enactment of authorizing legislation must occur prior to, and
not following, the consideration of an appropriation for the proposed
purpose. Thus, delaying the availability of an appropriation pending
enactment of an authorization will not protect that appropriation
against a point of order.<SUP>(11)</SUP> A bill violates the intent of
the requirement if it permits a portion of a lump sum--unauthorized at
the time the bill is being considered--to subsequently become available
without a further
[[Page 4980]]
appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``authorization'' for an appropriation must ordinarily derive
from statute. An executive order, for example, does not constitute
sufficient authorization in the absence of proof of its derivation from
a statute enacted by Congress.<SUP>(12)</SUP> On the other hand,
sufficient ``authorization'' for an appropriation may be found to exist
in a treaty that has been ratified by both parties; <SUP>(13)</SUP> in
a resolution of the House of the same Congress; <SUP>(14)</SUP> or in
legislation contained in a previous appropriation act which has been
allowed to become permanent law.<SUP>(15)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973
(proceedings related to H.R. 8619). See also Sec. Sec. 2.3,
2.4, infra.
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3587.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3656-3658, 3660.
15. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appropriation in excess of the specific amount authorized by law
is in violation of the rule prohibiting unauthorized
appropriations.<SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on
general appropriation bills was originally intended primarily to
prevent any delay of appropriation bills that might arise from
contention over propositions of legislation. However, as the
authorization process itself became more complicated over the years,
and as the number of programs requiring annual authorization increased,
there were frequent instances where the congressional appropriations
process remained uncompleted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. The
rule as currently implemented serves the purpose of giving legislative
committees the first opportunity to determine and report to both Houses
on priorities within specific legislative programs and the conditions
under which available funds may be expended, before the Appropriations
Committee recommends allocations of available revenues among various
legislative priorities during a given fiscal year. Procedures under the
Congressional Budget Act generally contemplate authorization of
expenditures by legislative committees as a prior step in the budget
process. (See, for example, Congressional Budget Act Sec. Sec. 301(c)
and 402(a).)
It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ``general
appropriation bills.'' Neither a resolution providing an appropriation
for a single government agency,<SUP>(17)</SUP>
[[Page 4981]]
nor a joint resolution containing continuing appropriations for diverse
agencies (to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are
enacted),<SUP>(18)</SUP> is considered a general appropriation bill
within the purview of the rule. In fact, the restrictions against
unauthorized items or legislation in a general appropriation bill or
amendment thereto are not applicable to a joint resolution continuing
appropriations, despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are
not ``continuing'' in nature.<SUP>(1)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 87th Cong 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1962.
18. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2
(4th ed.).
1. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.3
(4th ed.). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refusal to Appropriate for Authorized Purposes
Sec. 2.1 The House in the Committee of the Whole has the right to
refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part,
even though that object may be authorized by law.
On Feb. 18, 1938,<SUP>(2)</SUP> during consideration of the State,
Justice, Commerce, and Labor appropriations for 1939 (H.R. 9544), an
amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 2175, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. The principle is well
established. See also, for example, 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115,
77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942 (a refusal to appropriate
above a certain amount per designated recipient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 104, after line 25,
insert a new paragraph, as follows:
No part of any appropriation contained in this act for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be expended for any
expense incident to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for
the admission to any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the
United States for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for
readmission to the United States, or for the salary of any employee
charged with any duty in connection with the readmission to the
United States of any such alien without visa.
The following proceedings then took place:
Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
same point of order. This comes right back to the point I made
originally, that this provision deals with the present immigration
laws and is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes our
present act, which contains the provision that it is mandatory upon
the officials of the Department of Labor to advise an alien of his
status, whether he is legally or illegally in this country. This
provision seems to suggest that even a suggestion or an inference,
even a suggestion over the phone, would be a violation of the law,
and the men who are on the pay roll of the Government would be
penalized. I respectfully submit that the language offered as
[[Page 4982]]
the amendment to the new section is absolutely in the same
category, and that it is not germane to the present bill or to the
section now under consideration.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Dickstein) makes the point of
order that the amendment now suggested and offered by the gentleman
from Georgia is legislation. The Chair feels he is bound by
precedents which have been established for a long time in this
House and have been ruled upon by many occupants of the chair more
distinguished than he.
The fact that the failure to appropriate money to carry out the
purposes of an act may work an actual hardship in the enforcement
of that act or may even effect the practical repeal or certain
provisions of the act is entirely within the discretion of Congress
itself. Congress does not have to appropriate any money for laws
which have been authorized by bills reported from legislative
committees. As long ago as 1896 Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House, ruled as follows, and I read from
page 47 of Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives:
The House in Committee of the Whole House has the right to
refuse to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part
even though that object may be authorized by law. That
principle of limitation has been sustained so repeatedly that
it may be regarded as a part of the parliamentary law of the
Committee of the Whole.
Therefore, the Chair is unable to agree with the contention of
the gentleman from New York and overrules the point of order.
Court Judgment as Authorization
Sec. 2.2 An appropriation to pay a judgment awarded by a court is not
in order unless such judgment has been properly certified to
Congress.
On June 20, 1935,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 79 Cong. Rec. 9811, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Carlson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Carlson moves to amend H.R. 8554, page 6, by inserting
a new paragraph following line 6, entitled ``Federal Trade
Commission'':
``For payment to Mrs. William E. Humphrey, or executor of
the estate of William E. Humphrey, $3,017 amount due as salary
at time of his death as member of Federal Trade Commission.''
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the amendment is new legislation in that the
judgment has not been certified according to law. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. Under
the law,<SUP>(6)</SUP> judg
[[Page 4983]]
ments have to be certified to the Congress before an appropriation
is made; therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
6. The Chair apparently relied on provisions governing procedures
whereby claimants obtaining judgments against the United States
are compensated from appropriations made for that purpose. See,
for example, the present 28 USC Sec. 2518 (based on 26 Stat.
537, Sept. 30, 1890 and 43 Stat. 939, Feb. 13, 1925), regarding
certification to Congress of judgments of the Court of Claims;
see also 28 USC Sec. 2517 (payment of judgments of the Court of
Claims out of general appropriations therefor); 28 USC
Sec. 2414 (payment of judgments and compromise settlements on
claims against the United States); 31 USC Sec. 724a (permanent
appropriation to pay final judgments, awards, and compromise
settlements); 28 USC Sec. Sec. 2671 et seq. (tort claims
procedure); and House Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 852 (1981) (prohibiting private bills and
resolutions, and amendments to bills and resolutions,
authorizing payment of claims for which suit may be instituted
under tort claims procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order as Authorization
Sec. 2.3 The words ``authorized by law'' in Rule XXI clause 2, were
construed to refer to a ``law enacted by the Congress,'' and not to
encompass executive orders.
On Mar. 2, 1945,<SUP>(7)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1682, 1683, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY
Salaries and expenses: The limitation in the appropriation for
salaries and expenses, War Relocation Authority, in the National
War Agency Appropriation Act, 1945, on the amount which may be
expended for travel is hereby increased from $375,000 to $475,000;
and of said appropriation not to exceed $280,477 is made available
for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1945 incident to the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of the emergency refugee
shelter at Fort Ontario, N.Y., provided for in the President's
message of June 12, 1944, to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).
Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against that part of the section following the
semicolon in line 20 and ending on page 14, line 2, that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill; furthermore, that there is no
specific authority in existing statutes for the operation of this
particular program. The Executive order of the President which
created the War Relocation Authority does not encompass the
activities for which these funds would be used. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(8)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes the point of
order against the language beginning in the concluding part of line
20 on page 13 and extending through the balance of
[[Page 4984]]
the paragraph, that this appropriation is not authorized by law.
Under the rules of the House, no appropriation shall be
reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an
amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by
law.
It is the opinion of the Chair that an Executive order does not
meet the requirement stated in that rule. Therefore, not being
authorized by law enacted by Congress, the appropriation would not
be in order. The mere fact that it may be a reappropriation would
not make it in order if the original appropriation was not
authorized by law.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the
gentleman from Idaho.
Sec. 2.4 An executive order does not meet the requirement that
appropriations must be authorized by law.
On July 5, 1945,<SUP>(9)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st 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. 3649),
making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in
the Committee of the Whole. . . .
The Speaker: <SUP>(10)</SUP> The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be considered as read and that all Members desiring
to submit amendments or points of order have leave to submit them
at this time.
The Chairman: <SUP>(11)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the unanimous consent request that has just been granted, I make
the point of order against the first item, National War Labor
Board, on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by
law.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of
order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the
same ground against the item for the Office of Defense
Transportation on page 5.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The point of order is conceded, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcantonio)
makes a point of order which the gentleman
[[Page 4985]]
from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) concedes. The Chair sustains the point
of order.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we do not
all have to concede the point of order. I want to ask the gentleman
from Missouri a question. . . .
Mr. Rankin: . . . If these were times of peace and this agency
had been created by the Executive order, as it was, I submit that a
point of order would lie against it. But the President of the
United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces. One of
the necessary incidents to that position is the ability and the
power to see that our troops and the materials to support them are
transported. For that reason, in order to break a bottleneck in our
transportation system, the President of the United States set up
the Office of Defense Transportation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chairman again states his opinion, regardless
of his own beliefs as to the merits of this particular office, that
the point of order must be sustained.
The rule is very explicit to the effect that no appropriation
shall be reported in any general appropriation bill or be in order
as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously
authorized by law.
In this present Congress, the present occupant of the chair
ruled that an Executive order was not a law such as could comply
with this rule.<SUP>(12)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sees no reason for departing from that holding. The
Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
The point of order is sustained.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973
(H.R. 8619).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language in Prior Appropriation Measure as Authorization
Sec. 2.5 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a point
of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but it may become permanent law
if it is not challenged and is permanent in its language and
nature; thus, language in a previous appropriation act providing
that ``hereafter such sums . . . as may be approved by Congress
shall be available (to increase domestic consumption of farm
commodities),'' was held to be permanent authorizing legislation
capable of supporting subsequent appropriations therefor.
On May 20, 1964,<SUP>(14)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R.
11202) for fiscal 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, raised a point
of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the
portion of the
[[Page 4986]]
section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. I will read it.
It reads as follows:
(5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase
domestic consumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority
contained in Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount
$2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
construction, alteration and modification of research
facilities.
There is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(15)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) makes a point of order
addressed to the language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning
with ``and'' and continuing through and including line 9, on the
ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was
contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the
appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a
limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the
words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that
``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one
year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for
such purpose,'' and so forth.
The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law
cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the
language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore
overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.6 A point of order having been raised that a portion of a lump
sum supplemental appropriation for the White House was not
authorized by law, the Chairman determined that the permanent law
authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, as well as
legislative provisions authorizing additional employment contained
in an earlier regular appropriation bill enacted for that fiscal
year, constituted sufficient authorization.
On Nov. 30, 1973,<SUP>(16)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
11576) a point of order was raised against a provision, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 38854, 38855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The White House Office
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'',
$1,500,000.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
I raise a point of order to the language of lines 5, 6, 7, and
8 of page 14 under the provisions of rule XXI, clause 2, which
prohibits legislation on appropriation bills and which prohibits
the appropriation of funds without prior legislative authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to read from the language of the
commit
[[Page 4987]]
tee's report on White House office, salaries and expenses:
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000, a
reduction of $110,000 below the amount of the budget estimate.
These supplemental funds were requested to provide the
additional funds needed for the activities of the Counselors to the
President and their staffs, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, the President's Special Assistant for Consumer
Affairs, the Council on Economic Policy, and other professional
staff and consultants.
Mr. Chairman, before I pursue this matter further, I would
point out first of all that when an item in an appropriation bill
is defective as violative of the rules of the House--in this
instance, Rule XXI, clause 2--the whole of the particular item
under the point of order falls.
I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order
is directed specifically to the President's special assistant for
consumer affairs and to that office, which was challenged earlier
on this floor this year by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross).
Upon his point of order the Chair acted affirmatively and ruled in
support of the point of order and ruled out the item.
I challenge further on the same grounds, Mr. Chairman, the
appropriations for counsellor to the President in that there is no
statutory authority for counsellors to the President. I challenge
further the President's foreign intelligence advisory board in that
there is also, to my knowledge, no statutory authority for this
particular office.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I challenge on the same grounds again the
counsel on economic policy of the President and his staff and
offices, appurtenances and expenditures pertinent thereto. I would
point out further, Mr. Chairman, that under the rules of the House
of Representatives, that the burden is upon the proponent of the
appropriation bill to establish the legislative basis and to cite
the statutes upon which the Appropriations Committee bases its
action in appropriating funds. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> . . . Sections 103, 105, and 106
of title 3 authorize appropriations for the purpose of paying the
salaries of certain persons in the Executive Office of the
President. The appropriation bill itself, in the paragraph
beginning on page 14, line 5, gives no indication that the
appropriation would be used for any unauthorized purpose. The
paragraph merely provides a lump sum for the Executive Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Michigan, in making his point of order, goes
beyond the provisions of the bill and looks at the provisions of
the committee report.
The Chair does not believe that in this case, any more than in
the case made by the gentleman from Iowa earlier in the
consideration of the bill, it is within his province to go beyond
the plain provisions of the bill, and the authorizing statute.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier ruling cited by Mr. Dingell had
taken place on June 15, 1973. Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas,
had sustained a point of
[[Page 4988]]
order against an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs,
established by executive order, where the Committee on Appropriations
had not cited statutory authority for the appropriation (contained in
H.R. 8619, agriculture-environment and consumer protection
appropriations bill). Congress subsequently enacted Public Law No. 93-
143, the Treasury, Executive Office Appropriations Act for fiscal 1974,
containing funds for the White House Office and legislation, effective
for the same fiscal year covered by the supplemental appropriation
bill, permitting the President to employ consultants notwithstanding
other provisions of law. For that reason, and because it was not
readily apparent from the language of either the supplemental bill, the
authorizing statute, or the committee report that a portion of the lump
sum was to fund an unauthorized office, the Chair overruled the point
of order.
Appropriation Bill as Containing Specific Approval
Sec. 2.7 The restriction in law prohibiting the use of any funds for
the preparation of final plans or for construction of the west
front extension ``until specifically approved and appropriated
therefor by the Congress'' was held not to require legislative
``approval'' prior to the appropriation, where the legislative
history of the law indicated that other law was to be considered
sufficient authorization for the project and that only further
approval through the appropriation process was required.
On Apr. 17, 1973,<SUP>(18)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriations bill
(H.R. 6691) for fiscal 1974, Mr. J. Edward Roush, of Indiana, raised a
point of order against the following language in the bill, and
proceedings ensued as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 12781, 12782, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of the Capitol
For an amount, additional to amounts heretofore appropriated,
for ``Extension of the Capitol'', in substantial accordance with
plans for extension of the West Central front heretofore approved
by the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, to be
expended, as authorized by law, by the Architect of the Capitol
under the direction of such Commission, $58,000,000, to remain
available until expended. . . .
Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is based upon these
following facts: The appropriation as proposed
[[Page 4989]]
lacks legislative authority and, secondly, the language
``$58,000,000 to remain available until expended'' constitutes
legislation on a general appropriation bill. . . .
I would refer to the appropriation bill last year, which would
be Public Law 92-342, under the section ``Extension of the
Capitol:''
Funds available under this appropriation may be used for
the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the
west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be
used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of
construction of said project until specifically approved and
appropriated therefor by the Congress.
I point out to the Chairman that the plans have not been
specifically approved. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I have searched this matter diligently and the
only authority that I can find for the extension of the west front
of the Capitol necessarily has to be inferred from the language of
a bill which was passed in 1855. . . .
Mr. [Robert R.] Casey of Texas: . . . Mr. Chairman, this
project is authorized, and I would point out that the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roush) who is making the point of order, failed
to read all of Public Law 242 of the 84th Congress.
The law reads:
Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is
hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives--
Et cetera.
In substantial accordance with Scheme B of the
architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress
and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document
Numbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Congress), but with such
modifications and additions, including provisions for
restaurant facilities and such other facilities in the Capitol
Grounds, together with utilities . . .
It does not just refer to one item. I think this gives great
latitude.
Together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other
appurtenant or necessary items . . . there is hereby
appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, that the Architect of the Capitol under the direction
of said commission and without regard to the provisions of
section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized
to enter into contracts.
Et cetera.
This law was amended February 14, 1956, and there was added
this amendment under ``Extension of the Capitol.'' This was Public
Law 406, 84th Congress:
The paragraph entitled ``Extension of the Capitol'' in the
Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, is hereby amended by
inserting after the words ``to remain available until
expended'' and before the colon, a comma and the following:
``and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such
additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be
required for the purposes hereof. . . .''
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> . . . The gentleman from Indiana
. . . contends that Public Law 92-342 requires ``specific''
approval by Congress of prepara
[[Page 4990]]
tion of final plans or initiation of construction prior to an
appropriation therefor. The Chair has examined the legislative
history of the provision relied upon by the gentleman from Indiana
in support of his argument that the appropriation must be
specifically approved by Congress prior to the appropriation, and
it is clear from the debate in the Senate on March 28, 1972, that
approval in an appropriation bill was all that was required by the
provision in Public Law 92-342. The Chair feels that there is
sufficient authorization contained in [Public Law 84-242] as
amended by Public Law 84-406 for the appropriation contained in the
pending bill, and that no further specific authorization is
required prior to an appropriation for final plans and construction
for the West Front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. Sec. 2.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing
that appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses were
to be available for expenses of attendance of officers and
employees at meetings or conventions was held to be in order since
such provision was authorized to be included in appropriation bills
by statutory provisions.
On May 2, 1951, <SUP>(20)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The
following proceeding took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 36,
line 17, insert the following:
Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel
expenses shall be available for expenses of attendance of
officers and employees at meetings or conventions of members of
societies or associations concerned with the work of the bureau
or office for which the appropriation concerned is made.
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order against the amendment that it involves
legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
. . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(21)</SUP> The gentleman from Washington has
called the attention of the Chair to section 83, title 5 of the
United States Code. Permit the Chair to read the language contained
in that provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No money appropriated by any act shall be expended for
membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the
United States or of the District of Columbia, in any society or
association or for expenses of attendance of any person at any
meeting or convention of members of any society or association
unless such fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid
by specific appropriations for such purposes or are provided
for in express terms in some general appropriation.
The Chair feels that the language which has just been read
governs the matter and overrules the point of order
[[Page 4991]]
made by the gentleman from New York.
Senate Confirmation of Appointees Required Prior to Appropriation for
Positions
Sec. Sec. 2.9 Although the President has the power to appoint foreign
ambassadors and ministers, an appropriation to pay such salaries is
not in order unless the Senate has confirmed the appointment.
On Aug. 17, 1937, <SUP>(22)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8245, a deficiency appropriation bill. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 81 Cong. Rec. 9175, 9176, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries of ambassadors and ministers: For an additional amount
for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938, for
the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
to Lithuania at $10,000 per annum, $8,333.34: Provided, That the
appropriation for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal
year 1938, shall be available for payment of the salary of an envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Estonia and Latvia at
$10,000 per annum. . . .
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point on order against the language on page 28, lines 4 to 12,
inclusive, as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill,
not authorized by law. It creates a new position, that of Minister
of Lithuania. The President has no constitutional right and is
empowered by no act of Congress to create additional positions.
Therefore, I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and if the
Chair is in doubt I would like to speak a little further on the
matter and cite some precedents. . . .
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I think
the item is subject to a point of order for the reason that the
Minister has been appointed but not confirmed. The President has
the right to appoint, but if the minister has not been confirmed
the Congress would have no right to appropriate. There has been no
confirmation. I think the gentleman's point of order is well taken,
if he chooses to make it. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(1)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. As
stated by the gentleman from Virginia, the President has the right
to appoint. At the present time, however, the Senate has not
confirmed the appointment. The appropriation, therefore, is subject
to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Implied Authorization
Sec. Sec. 2.10 Appropriations for travel expenses, including
examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, under the
heading ``Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture,''
were held authorized by law as necessary
[[Page 4992]]
to carry out the basic law setting up the Department of
Agriculture.
On Apr. 27, 1950,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter of the
general appropriation bill of 1951. The following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language appearing in lines 6 to 7, page
204, ``travel expenses, including examination of estimates for
appropriations in the field.''. . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] has made a point of
order against the language appearing on page 204 of the chapter
beginning in line 6, which has been quoted by him, on the ground
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the
rules of the House. The Chair has examined the language and has
listened attentively to the arguments presented and has also made
an examination of the precedents and decisions of the House. It
appears that in 1938 a point of order was made against language
similar to this, and the Chairman, Mr. Jones, of Texas, overruled
the point of order. The decision is found on page 2656 of the
Record of March 1, 1938. On the basis of that precedent and
decision the Chair overrules the point of order.
The 1938 decision relied on by the Chair took place during
consideration of H.R. 9621, appropriations for the Department of the
Interior. An amendment had been offered, reading in part as follows:
<SUP>(4)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 1, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: Page 72, beginning with line
12, insert the following:
Administration provisions and limitations: For all
expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts
amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the
reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures
from said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000
for personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the
office of the chief engineer . . .; examination of estimates
for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and
deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for
lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding.
The following exchange took place:
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is
legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not
authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic
prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision
for examination of estimates for appropriations in
[[Page 4993]]
the field, which is not authorized by law; $15,000 for
lithographing and engraving, not authorized by law; the purchase of
ice, the purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees,
not authorized by law.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment
provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of June 17,
1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemenatary thereto, known
as the reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures
from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The Chair thinks that
the items to which the gentleman from New York objects specifically
are incidental to the main purpose of carrying out the reclamation
law. These incidental items it seems to the Chair are necessary to
carry out the major purposes of the reclamation law, and the Chair,
therefore, overrules the point of order.
Mr. Taber offered an amendment to strike the words ``examination of
estimates for appropriations in the field,'' which amendment was
rejected.
Specific Project Authorized by General Grant of Authority
Sec. 2.11 Legislation authorizing the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to develop and test improved aircraft, and
legislation transferring and vesting those functions ``including
the development and construction of a civil supersonic aircraft''
in the Secretary of Transportation was held to authorize an
appropriation for the construction of prototypes of the civil
supersonic aircraft.
On May 27, 1970,<SUP>(5)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation
appropriation bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17755), Mr. Sidney R. Yates,
of Illinois, raised a point of order against certain language in the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 17310, 17311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an additional amount for expenses, not otherwise provided
for, necessary for the development of a civil supersonic aircraft,
including the construction of two prototype aircraft of the same
design, and advances of funds without regard to the provisions of
section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),
$289,965,000, to remain available until expended. . . .
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation for the
development of a supersonic aircraft under the terms of a contract
between the Government and the Boeing Co. The authorization for the
appropriation is admittedly section 312(b) of the Federal Aviation
Act, which provides as follows:
The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise
such development work and service testing as tends to the
creation of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers,
and appliances.
For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make
pur
[[Page 4994]]
chases--including exchange--by negotiation, or otherwise, of
experimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances, which seem to offer special advantages to
aeronautics.
There is nothing in either provision which authorizes the
spending of public funds for private purposes or private gains.
There is nothing in either provision which gives the benefits of
whatever development or testing is undertaken to the person or the
company doing the work. My point here is if the Government pays for
the work, as it is in this case, then the Government is entitled to
the product. The Government owns the product because it has paid
for it. There is no provision in the law which permits gifts or for
making grants. That is not the case in this contract because the
plane when built will belong to Boeing. Under the contract,
whatever results from the development belongs to Boeing, which has
the burden of producing the SST. Under the contract the Government
is to be repaid for its money through royalties from the sale of
planes, but the planes when completed will belong to the Boeing Co.
Yet, as I said, there is no authority on the statute books for
loans or grants to the contractor. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(6)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raised the point of
order against the appropriation appearing on page 2 of the bill,
entitled ``Civil Supersonic Aircraft Development,'' on the ground
that there is no authorization in law for the development of such
an aircraft, and for the expenditure provided herein.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) in responding to
the point of order has cited certain provisions of law which have
been recognized by the gentleman from Illinois as pertaining
directly to the authorization of the civil supersonic aircraft
development program.
The Chair has examined the laws to which attention has been
directed. Chapter 20 of title 49, United States Code, relates to
the Federal aviation program of the Federal Government, and sets
forth the powers and duties of the Federal Aviation Agency and, as
has been pointed out, empowers the Administrator to ``undertake or
supervise such developmental work and service testing as tends to
the creation of improved aircraft. For such purpose, the
Administrator is empowered to make purchases--of experimental
aircraft.''
Even broader, I think, is the delegation of authority that
appears in Public Law 89-670, establishing the Department of
Transportation. Section 6(c)(1) of that act states as follows:
There are hereby transferred to and vested in the Secretary
(of Transportation) all functions, powers, and duties of the
Federal Aviation Agency, and of the Administrator and other
officers and offices thereof, including the development and
construction of a civil supersonic aircraft.
The Chair has heard the argument of the gentleman from Illinois
with reference to his contention that this must be construed
narrowly, but does not find in the law or in the precedents any
requirement for as narrow a construction as the gentleman has
contended for. It is a broad delegation of
[[Page 4995]]
authority, and must not be construed as narrowly as the gentleman
has sought.
In view of these citations, which give the Secretary a broad
experimental and development authority and bestow upon him in
explicit terms the authority to develop and construct a Civil
Supersonic Aircraft, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point
of order.
Therefore the point of order is overruled.
``Miscellaneous'' Items as Authorized
Sec. 2.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for
certain items ``and other miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise
provided for'' was held to apply to regular expenses that are
authorized by law, and in order.
On Mar. 16, 1945,<SUP>(7)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2603, a State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and
Federal Loan Agency appropriation. A provision was read as follows, and
a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2378, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous expenses: For stationery, supplies, materials and
equipment, freight, express, and drayage charges, washing towels,
advertising, purchase of lawbooks and books of reference,
periodicals and newspapers, communication service and postage; for
the maintenance, repair, and operation of one motor-propelled
delivery truck; for rent in the District of Columbia, and
elsewhere; for official traveling expenses, including examination
of estimates for appropriations in the field, and other
miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
effectively carry out the provisions of the act providing for the
administration of the United States courts, and for other purposes,
$26,000. . . .
Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: . . . I make a point of order
against the language beginning in line 15 with the word ``and'' and
ending in line 16 with the word ``for.''
The Chairman: <SUP>(8)</SUP> The gentleman makes a point of
order against the language reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And other miscellaneous expenses not otherwise provided
for?
Mr. Jones: That is right.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, this
provides merely for regular expenses that are authorized by law. I
do not see anything in this subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair fails to see any reason why the
language referred to should be subject to a point of order, and
unless the gentleman from Ohio can be more specific in his
objection the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
[[Page 4996]]
Increasing Appropriation Within Authorized Limits
Sec. 2.13 It is in order to increase the appropriation in an
appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law if such increase
does not exceed the amount authorized for such objects.
On Mar. 10, 1942,<SUP>(9)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation
bill. An amendment was allowed which restored part of a sum which had
previously been stricken from the bill, where such amendment did not
cause the appropriation for the objects under consideration to exceed
the total amount for such objects authorized by law. The portion of the
bill in question, and proceedings relating to it, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2224, 2225, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood control, general: For the construction and maintenance of
certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Flood
Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented,
including printing and binding, newspapers, lawbooks, books of
reference, periodicals, and office supplies and equipment required
in the Office of the Chief of Engineers to carry out the purposes
of this appropriation, and for preliminary examinations and surveys
of and contingencies in connection with flood-control projects
authorized by law, $144,973,700: . . .
Mr. [David D.] Terry [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Terry: ``On page 7, line 5, strike
out $144,973,700 and insert $147,078,700.''
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment. . . .
Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
raise the amount carried in the bill, $144,973,000 for flood
control to an amount that will be sufficient to include the
beginning of the work on the Table Rock Reservoir.
Congress has authorized for the White River Basin $49,000,000
to be appropriated for the prosecution of a comprehensive dual
purpose flood control and power program in the White River Basin.
According to the testimony in the hearings, $15,870,000 was
allocated from funds previously appropriated against this
authorization. The Budget has presented four projects in the White
River Basin which total $37,525,000.
The appropriation of this amount, in conjunction with the
$15,870,000, would result in a total of $53,395,000, or $4,395,000
in excess of the $49,000,000 that has been authorized to be
appropriated.
The Committee of the Whole eliminated the $6,500,000 which was
included in the Budget sent down on
[[Page 4997]]
February 20 for the construction of Table Rock Reservoir. When this
matter was up in the subcommittee at the time of the marking up of
the bill, a motion was made by a committee member to eliminate
Table Rock, but the subcommittee voted against cutting out the
Table Rock item. When the bill came up in the full committee on
appropriations, on a very close vote, the committee eliminated
Table Rock on the theory that--and it was a fact--the appropriation
was over the authorization. So the Table Rock item was eliminated,
as I say, by a very close vote.
My amendment merely seeks to raise the amount to the limit of
the congressional authorization. If we adopt my amendment we add
$2,105,000 to the amount in the bill for flood control, but it will
permit considerable work to be done on the Table Rock project this
year and the coming fiscal year, and we shall still be within the
authorized appropriation limit carried in the Budget estimate for
the whole bill, and we shall not be above the $49,000,000 which has
been authorized by the Congress for the White River Basin. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(10)</SUP> Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The authorization for these two projects was only $49,000,000.
. . .
Mr. Chairman, this exceeds the total amount authorized. . . .
Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the committee in charge of the bill
has checked those figures with the Army engineers in charge of
flood control, and the figure that I have included in the amendment
is the figure given by the engineers. It shows a total of
$53,395,000 will be appropriated, including $15,870,000 past
amounts, and those in the Budget estimates for 1943, in the sum of
$37,525,000, with a $49,000,000 authorization. That would exceed
the authorization $4,395,000. If $6,500,000 for Table Rock is
stricken out, the authorizations will exceed the appropriations in
an amount of $2,105,000, which is the amount of my amendment, and
is an amount that will not exceed the Budget estimate and will not
exceed the $49,000,000 authorized by the Legislative Committee of
this House for the comprehensive plan for the White River Basin.
Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I may say the gentleman's own figures
show that these are the items to begin the project and they will
exceed the amount of the Budget estimate.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
This section of the bill, lines 4 and 5, is for preliminary
examination, surveys, or for contingencies in connection with
flood-control projects authorized by law.
The gentleman from Arkansas in his amendment raises the
appropriation, but in that raise it only applies to those projects
which are authorized by law; therefore, the point of order is
overruled.
Sec. 2.14 An amendment proposing simply to increase an appropriation
for a specific object over the amount car
[[Page 4998]]
ried in the appropriation bill does not constitute a change in law
unless such increase is in excess of that authorized.
On Feb. 28, 1939,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office appropriation bill.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2029, 2030, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction of public buildings outside of the District of
Columbia: For continuation of construction of, and acquisition of
sites for, public buildings outside of the District of Columbia,
including the purposes and objects, and subject to the limitations,
specified under this head in the Third Deficiency Appropriation
Act, fiscal year 1937, and also including those increases in the
limits of cost of certain authorized projects, 25 in number, as
specified in House Document No. 177, Seventy-sixth Congress,
$30,000,000: Provided, That the provisions of section 322 of the
act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412), shall not apply with respect
to the rental of temporary quarters for housing Federal activities
during the replacement or remodeling of buildings authorized under
this or previous acts.
Mr. [James F.] O'Connor [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'Connor: Page 51, line 8,
strikeout ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$60,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that it is not authorized by law. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(12)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. O'Connor] offers an amendment
on page 51, line 8, seeking to increase the appropriation there
stated, $30,000,000, to the figure of $60,000,000, to which
amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of
order on the ground that the increase in the item sought to be made
is not authorized by law.
The Chair invites attention to Public Resolution 122, Seventy-
fifth Congress, title III, Federal Public Buildings, and quotes in
part as follows:
. . . is hereby increased from $70,000,000 to $130,000,000.
There is a balance remaining of that authorization of
$71,000,000. The pending bill carries an appropriation of
$30,000,000, which would leave $41,000,000 unappropriated. The
amendment of the gentleman from Montana seeks to increase the
$30,000,000 appropriation to $60,000,000, or seeks to appropriate
$30,000,000 of the remaining $41,000,000 authorized by law.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing an additional
amount within the total authorized was held to be in order.
[[Page 4999]]
On Feb. 25, 1958, <SUP>(13)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10881, a bill making supplemental appropriations. The
following provision was read and a point of order was raised as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an additional amount for ``Acreage reserve program,''
fiscal year 1958, $250,000, which shall be available to formulate
and administer an acreage reserve program in accord with the
provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C.
1821-1824 and 1802-1814), with respect to the 1958 crops, in an
amount not to exceed $175 million in addition to the amount
specified for such purposes in Public Law 85-118.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the paragraph on page 4, lines 1 to 9 of the bill on
the ground that it changes existing law. I refer the chairman to
the language of the appropriation bill which became law on the 2d
day of August. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language objected to by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] provides for an additional amount. This of course means an
additional amount to that provided for in the authorization
contained in Public Law 540 of the 84th Congress.
The Chair therefore feels that in view of the fact that there
are ample funds authorized to carry out this program, and that the
appropriation herein proposed is within the authorized amount, the
point of order cannot be sustained.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The law referred to in the point of order
was contained in Pub. L. No. 85-118 which provided, ``That no part of
this appropriation shall be used to formulate and administer an acreage
reserve program which would result in total compensation being paid to
producers in excess of'' a designated amount. That limitation, since it
applied only to the appropriation in that act, had no applicability to
the supplemental appropriation which was in dispute here.
Appropriation of Total Authorization
Sec. 2.16 Where the law authorizes an appropriation of a specific
amount and a paragraph of an appropriation bill appropriates a
portion thereof, an amendment changing the figure in the bill to
the full amount authorized is in order.
On Mar. 28, 1939,<SUP>(15)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5269, an agricultural
[[Page 5000]]
appropriation bill. The following portion of the bill was before the
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 3454, 3455, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Tenancy
To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the
provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act,
approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), including the
employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and
elsewhere, exclusive of printing and binding, as authorized by said
act, $24,984,500, together with the unexpended balance of the
appropriation made under said act for the fiscal year 1939.
Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 93, line
22, after the word ``Act'', strike ``$24,584,500'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$50,000,000.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that the $50,000,000 is not authorized by law. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(16)</SUP> The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma provides that the figures, $24,984,500, be
stricken out and $50,000,000 inserted in lieu thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill is making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture, and for the Farm Credit Administration, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1940. The Chair has examined the law, and the
law provides, on the question of farm tenancy, that not to exceed
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated for the year ending June 30,
1938; not to exceed $25,000,000 for the year ending June 30, 1939;
and not to exceed $50,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
Therefore the point of order is overruled.
Effect of Language Limiting Appropriations to Purposes Authorized by
Law
Sec. 2.17 A point of order will not lie against a lump-sum
appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some
of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation
of funds have not been authorized, since language in the bill
limits use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''
On June 18, 1958,<SUP>(17)</SUP> a point of order was made against
provisions of H.R. 12858 (appropriations for civil functions
administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies of the
Department of the Interior), as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
construction, general
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized
[[Page 5001]]
by law; detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
projects (including those for development with participation or
under consideration for participation by States, local
governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible for
selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction); and not to
exceed $1,600,000 for transfer to the Secretary of the Interior
for conservation of fish and wildlife as authorized by law; to
remain available until expended $577,085,500: . . . Provided
further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for
projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by a law
limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may
be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized
to be appropriated. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: [I make a point of order
against the] paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending on page
5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the appropriation which
has not been authorized by law. The figure there is $577,085,500. I
am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by letter dated June 11,
1958, that there is contained here $57,702,253 in projects which
are not authorized by law.
I am able by referring to the different items on page 5 of the
Report that there are the Beaver Reservoir in Arkansas, the Bull
Shoals Reservoir, Arkansas and Missouri. . . . There are probably
15 or 20 of those items. . . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: [The] gentleman makes a
point of order against the figure $577,085,500 in line 8 on page 4.
But the point of order does not lie for the reason that in the
proviso at the bottom of page 4 it is specifically provided:
Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be
used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by
a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as
may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized
to be appropriated.
So the point of order is not well taken, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, these projects are without and beyond
the limits of the authorization. That is the point of order.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, may I also call attention to the
language beginning on page 3 as follows:
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.
The figure the gentleman refers to is for this specific
purpose.
The Chairman [Hale Boggs, of Louisiana]: The Chair is prepared
to rule.
The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23,
page 3, the language is as follows:
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.
Then further, as again pointed out by the chairman, there is
this language on the bottom of page 4:
That no part of this appropriation shall be used for
projects not authorized by law.
Now, that language, in the opinion of the Chair, is quite
specific in that none
[[Page 5002]]
of these funds regardless of the amount involved, can be used for
any project which is not authorized by law.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.18 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the
construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds
appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by law ``or
which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be
appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the
amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to
limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order
against the language as legislation was overruled.
On May 24, 1960,<SUP>(18)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 12326), the
following paragraph of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the prosecution of river and harbor . . . and related
projects authorized by law; detailed studies, and plans and
specifications, of projects . . . authorized or made eligible for
selection by law . . .; and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer
to the Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and
wildlife as authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall
be used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized
by a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as
may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized
to be appropriated: . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> The Chair recognizes the
gentleman to make (a) point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line
18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a law limiting
the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may be within the
limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be
appropriated.''
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language
on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I
make the further point of order that this is authorizing
appropriations for projects not authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote briefly from ``Cannon's
Precedents,'' page 63:
As a general proposition whenever a limitation is
accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' ``until,''
``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-called
limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to its
ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the
conservative side. By doing so appropriation bills will be
relieved of much of the legislation which is being constantly
grafted
[[Page 5003]]
upon them and a check given a practice which seems to the
Chair, both unwise and in violation of the spirit, as well as
the substance, of our rules.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut]
care to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the
language. The legislative committee has placed outside limits on
the amount of money which can be spent in a given river basin. Such
basin may have a number of dams or projects in it. Without the
language these monetary limits could be exceeded by action on an
appropriation bill, thus setting aside the action of the
legislative committee.
This is strictly a limitation.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the
Chair that more than one member of the committee has admitted that
there are appropriations not authorized by law, that this is a
subterfuge, and I say, Mr. Chairman, designed to controvert the
rule of the House.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on Appropriations
for the past 18 years. I cannot recall when a point of order has
ever been raised against similar language in an appropriation bill.
The language is simply limiting an appropriation expenditure,
providing that the expenditure shall not be made until such project
is authorized by law. I fail to see, Mr. Chairman, where a point of
order could lie against this language because it is purely a simple
limitation of expenditure on an appropriation bill; nothing more,
nothing less.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an
identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958, by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Taber). It also happens that the present
occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The Chair
ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no
question about its referring to the controlling phase ``authorized
by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless
authorized by law.
The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling
made on June 18, 1958.
Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the preceding one
demonstrate that when a lumpsum appropriation is restricted by specific
language in the bill to projects authorized by law, indications in the
committee report to the effect that certain unauthorized projects may
be contemplated must be conceded to be without legislative effect.
Where there is such a conflict in language, the language in the bill
itself would prevail. Further discussion of this concept appears in
Chapter 26, infra.
[[Page 5004]]
Sec. 2.19 A point of order will not lie against an amendment proposing
to increase a lump-sum appropriation for construction and
rehabilitation of public works projects when language in the bill
limits use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects . . . as
authorized by law.''
On June 5, 1959,<SUP>(20)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for
civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Budge: On page 8, line 5, strike
out ``$128,473,239'' and insert ``$128,973,-239.''. . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The amendment has just
been read and I am reserving a point of order to the amendment.
The Chairman: <SUP>(21)</SUP> Will the gentleman from Missouri
state his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cannon: The point of order is that the project is
unauthorized.
Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to overrule the point of
order without further discussion, because the amendment simply
changes the amount of the bill without specific reference to any
project.
The point of order is overruled.
Parliamentarian's Note: The paragraph to which this amendment was
offered began as follows: ``Construction and Rehabilitation. For
construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation projects or
parts thereof (including power transmission facilities) and for other
related activities, as authorized by law to remain available until
expended, $128,473,239 . . .''
Sec. 2.20 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum
appropriation for increased pay costs, where the objection was
based on the ground that a portion of the increase was not yet
authorized by law; it was noted that language in the bill limited
use of the appropriation to pay costs ``authorized by or pursuant
to law.''
On May 21, 1969,<SUP>(1)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11400, a supplemental appropriation bill. The
following
[[Page 5005]]
paragraphs of the bill were read for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
House of Representatives
compensation of members
Compensation of Members, $1,975,000
salaries, officers, and employees
``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the
ground that, as admitted by the committee, this contains moneys to
be appropriated that have not been authorized by Congress.
The Chairman: <SUP>(2)</SUP> The Chair will inquire: Does the
gentleman's point of order refer to lines 12, 13, and 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman,
I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the
Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is, I believe, only
referring to the pay increase for the Speaker and other Members--
the item on line 12.
Mr. Gross: Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line
items contains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much
as I can to be sure I get the funds covered. If the gentleman will
tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with
the permission of the Chair.
Mr. Mahon: The funds which have not been authorized are
included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.
Mr. Gross: Those are the only funds that have not been
authorized?
Mr. Mahon: Yes; that is the figure involved. A small portion of
that has not been authorized. . . .
The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That
is correct.
Mr. Gross: You mean the $1,975,000?
Mr. Mahon: No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But it cannot
be paid unless it is authorized. Otherwise, it would revert unused
to the Treasury.
The Chairman: The Chair again is confused. The Chair sees no
reference to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language
referred to here.
Mr. Mahon: It is part of the figure of $1,975,000. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is still in a quandary because the
language in line 7 says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or
pursuant to law.''
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, all compensation due by law to Members
of Congress is authorized. If it is not authorized, it cannot be
paid.
The Chairman: Yes. . . .
The Chair is constrained to hold that the gentleman's point of
order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot
be used for any other purpose than increased pay costs authorized
by or pursuant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is
overruled.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1960
[H.R. 11666], where a point of order was made against a
paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that the lump-
sum figure therein contained, according to the report, funds
for one organization in excess of the authorization. Although
the point of order was conceded, the language of the bill
specified that appropriations in the paragraph were available
only for ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts''
providing for U.S. participation in certain organizations, and,
under the precedents, the quoted language would limit the
amount which could be used to the amount actually authorized,
so that the point of order would not lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5006]]
Authorizations Enacted After Reporting Appropriation Bill
Sec. 2.21 A point of order against an item in a general appropriation
bill was overruled when it became apparent that the authorizing
legislation had been enacted into law between the time the
appropriation bill was reported and the time it was considered in
the Committee of the Whole.
On May 19, 1970,<SUP>(4)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17619) a point of order was raised against
certain language in the bill as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 16164, 16165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act
of October 30, 1965 (16 U.S.C. 757), $2,168,000.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language on lines 1 through 3 of page 19
as unauthorized for an appropriation.
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> Does the gentlewoman from
Washington desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Yes, I do, Mr.
Chairman.
May I say, relative to the Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries
Conservation, the bill was signed by the President of the United
States on May 14.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The language in the bill indicates that this is under the
provisions of the act of October 30, 1965. As the gentlewoman from
Washington points out, the program has recently been reauthorized--
Public Law 91-249.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Repeal of Prior Authorization
Sec. 2.22 An act providing that notwithstanding any other law, ``no
appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration unless previously authorized by legislation
hereafter enacted by the Con
[[Page 5007]]
gress,'' was construed to have voided all previous authorizations
for appropriations to that agency; hence an appropriation was held
not to be in order since not authorized by law enacted after the
repeal.
On June 29, 1959,<SUP>(6)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
7978), a point of order was raised against certain provisions of the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Research and Development
For an additional amount for ``Research and development,''
fiscal year 1959, $18,675,000, to remain available until
expended.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point [of] order against
the language on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, on the ground that there
is no authorization in basic law for this appropriation to be made.
In connection with that, I send a copy of Public Law 86-45 of
the 86th Congress to the Chair. I make the point of order on the
ground that there is no authorization in basic law for this
appropriation to be made. The authorization for this appropriation
did exist at one time, but it was repealed by the act of June 15,
1959, Public Law 86-45, section 4, which reads as follows:
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no
appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration unless previously authorized by legislation
hereafter enacted by the Congress.
This law, Mr. Chairman, was approved on June 15, 1959. This
language clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that appropriations can
be made for items authorized by legislation which is hereafter
enacted, meaning after June 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly states that
appropriations can be made only for items authorized after June 15,
1959, hence all previous authorizations are voided. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa has made a point of order
against that portion of the bill appearing in lines 2, 3, and 4,
page 4, and has called the attention of the Chair to section 4 of
Public Law 86-45. In view of the language cited, the Chair sustains
the point of order.