[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-4]
[Page 5007-5025]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 3. Reappropriations
A House rule states:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating
unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision
shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations
for public works on which work has commenced.<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XXI clause 5 (renumbered as clause 6 beginning with the 94th
Congress), House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5008]]
The rule is not applicable when the reappropriation language is
identical to legislative authorization language enacted subsequent to
the adoption of the rule, since the law is a more recent expression of
the will of the House.<SUP>(9)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 3.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The precedents in this section must be compared with those carried
in Chapter 26, infra, discussing transfer of funds affecting other
appropriations, wherein provisions which sought to authorize the
transfer of previously appropriated funds into new accounts for a
different purpose have been ruled out as legislation changing existing
law in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI. Section 139(c) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, later incorporated into the
standing rules as clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI in 1953, sought
to preclude reappropriations of unexpended balances, which were
understood to be legislative methods (1) for making an appropriation
available after the period in which it may be obligated has expired, or
(2) for transferring to a given appropriation an amount not needed in
another appropriation.<SUP>(10)</SUP> Prior to 1946, provisions which
reappropriated in a direct manner unexpended balances and continued
their availability for the same purpose for an extended period of time
were not prohibited by Rule XXI because those provisions did not
contain direct language changing existing law by conferring new
authority (see, e.g., 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3592; 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1152), and this doctrine was extended even to include
reappropriations for different purposes than those for which originally
appropriated, if the new purposes were authorized by law (see, e.g., 7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158; Sec. 3.14, infra). Other precedents,
however, indicate that prior to 1946, propositions to make an
appropriation payable from funds already appropriated for a different
purpose have been ruled out as legislation (see e.g., 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1466). Indeed, on Dec. 14, 1921, Speaker Frederick H.
Gillett, of Massachusetts, stated that ``there are several decisions in
print which are contradictory. There are decisions both ways.'' (7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1158). In light of more recent precedents
contained in
[[Page 5009]]
Chapter 26, infra, however, it would appear that the Chair may properly
rule out as legislation in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI provisions on
a general appropriation bill which confer new authority to expend
previously appropriated funds for a new purpose or for unauthorized
projects by inclusion of language permitting or mandating transfers
between accounts. Both that chapter and this section indicate that the
Chair has on occasion relied upon both clause 2 and clause 5 of Rule
XXI to rule out provisions which sought to authorize the transfer of
previously appropriated funds into new accounts. Despite the conferral
of Rule X clause 1(b)(3) in the 93d Congress of jurisdiction over
``transfers of unexpended balances'' upon the Committee on
Appropriations, that committee remains restricted by clause 5 (now
clause 6) of Rule XXI from including reappropriations of unexpended
balances of appropriations in general appropriation bills, and only
transfers between accounts in the same general appropriation bill are
permitted (see Ch. 26, infra, discussion of transfer of funds within
the same bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, e.g., summary of hearings, Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 824, June 19, 1945
(hearing on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The return of an unexpended balance to the Treasury is in
order.<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 4 Hinds' precedents
Sec. 3594. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally
Sec. 3.1 An amendment to an appropriation bill proposing
reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations is in
violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), and therefore not in
order.
On July 11, 1955,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The
following provision of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 10232, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See also, for example,
106 Cong. Rec. 6862, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1960; 101
Cong. Rec. 8534, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1956. . . .
An amendment was offered as indicated below:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten:
On page 1, line 3, strike out the word ``appropriated'' and
substitute the word ``reappropriated.''
Page 1, line 4, strike out the words ``not otherwise'' and
substitute the word ``heretofore.''
The effect of which was to change the text of the bill to read:
That the following sums are reappropriated, out of any money in
the Treas
[[Page 5010]]
ury heretofore appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1956.
A point of order was made as follows:
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill. He attempts to appropriate money heretofore
appropriated . . . and it goes beyond the scope of the present
legislation.
Mr. [James L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding that a rule was had on this bill on legislation
included in it. It is my understanding that money now in the
Treasury to the credit of the foreign-aid program is not all
expended.
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> The legislation under
consideration is not here under a special rule. If the gentleman
does not care to be heard, the Chair is ready to rule on the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Rule XXI, clause 5, is very plain. It provides
that--
No general appropriation or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.
It seems to the Chair that this language very plainly deals
with the amendment that has just been offered, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
Sec. Sec. 3.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill reappropriating
unexpended balances of funds previously appropriated was held in
violation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and not in
order for certain monitoring activities.
On Aug. 20, 1951,<SUP>(14)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5215, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment
was offered and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 10393, 10394, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 9, strike out lines
22 and 23 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``For an
additional amount, for monitoring activities, to be derived from
funds previously appropriated, $1,000,000.''
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
The appropriation is from ``funds previously appropriated'' and
therefore is tantamount to a reappropriation. Under amendments to
the rules of the House enacted in the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, reappropriations are not in order on general
appropriation bills. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(15)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision in the gentleman's amendment providing that the
funds for monitoring activities are to be derived from funds
previously appropriated is a violation of the Reorga
[[Page 5011]]
nization Act, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 3.3 In an appropriation bill a provision that ``the unexpended
balance of appropriations heretofore reserved for moving the
International Broadcasting Service to the District of Columbia or
its environs shall remain available for such purpose until December
31, 1954,'' was ruled out, being a reappropriation in violation of
Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), the Chair also construing the
language to be legislation in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
On Mar. 3, 1954,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 8067, a State, Justice, and Commerce Department
appropriation. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 2600, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On page
49, lines 11 to 14, I make a point of order against that language.
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> Will the gentleman explain his
point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Leroy Johnson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rooney: This would make available into another fiscal year
funds appropriated in the current year. There is no authority in
law for this.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio]: I concede the point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair thinks this is legislation on an
appropriation bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Sec. 3.4 A provision in an appropriation bill permitting an
appropriation previously made in another act to be used for a new
purpose was conceded to be legislation.
On Dec. 11, 1969,<SUP>(18)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1970, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a
point of order against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 38541, 38542, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members' Clerk Hire
After June 1, 1970, but without increasing the aggregate basic
clerk hire monetary allowance to which each Member and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico is otherwise entitled by law, the
appropriation for ``Members' clerk hire'' may be used for
employment of a ``student congressional intern'' in accord with the
provisions of House Resolution 416, Eighty-ninth Congress.
Point of Order
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on
[[Page 5012]]
page 6, beginning with line 11 and through line 18, as being
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> Does the gentleman desire to be
heard in support of the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: I thought I made the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the Committee
on Appropriations put this legislation in the bill for the purpose
of accommodating Members. It is subject to a point of order, and
the point of order is conceded.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas has conceded the point
of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 3.5 Where the bill providing an annual authorization for the Coast
Guard Reserve had not yet been enacted into law, an amendment to a
general appropriation bill containing funds for Coast Guard Reserve
training and providing that amounts equal to prior year
appropriations for that purpose should be transferred to that
appropriation was held to contain an unauthorized appropriation in
violation of Rule XXI clause 2, and a reappropriation of unexpended
balances in violation of Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6).
On June 20, 1973,<SUP>(20)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation
appropriation bill for fiscal 1974 (H.R. 8760), Mr. George H. Mahon, of
Texas, raised a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr.
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts. Proceedings were as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 4, after line 23, insert:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 20538, 20539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Training
For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; and
supplies, equipment, and services; $25,000,000: Provided, That
amounts equal to the obligated balances against appropriations
for ``Reserve training'' for the two preceding years shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation, and such
merged appropriation shall be available as one fund, except for
accounting purposes of the Coast Guard, for payment of
obligations properly incurred against such prior year
appropriations and against this appropriation. . . .
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against
the amendment. The amendment, in my opinion, is legislation on an
appropriation bill and the funds are not authorized by law, so I
make the point of order against the amendment. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(1)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5013]]
Clause 2, rule XXI, prohibits unauthorized items from being
included in amendments to a general appropriation bill, and also
clause 5, rule XXI, has a prohibition against the reappropriation
of unexpended balances of sums appropriated in prior years. The
amendment is subject to a point of order for these reasons and the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Later Rule as Superseding Statute
Sec. 3.6 A provision in the mutual security appropriation bill
reappropriating unexpended balances was conceded to be a
reappropriation proscribed by Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6),
notwithstanding a provision in the Mutual Security Act of 1955
(Sec. 548, adopted July 8, 1955, 22 USC Sec. 1767a) providing that
``unexpended balances are authorized to be continued available,''
since the rules of the House readopted in 1959 contained a later
expression of Congress to the contrary.
On June 17, 1960,<SUP>(2)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 12619) making appropriations
for the mutual security program and related agencies for fiscal 1961,
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against certain
language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 106 Cong. Rec. 13138, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 5, lines 1 through 8, inclusive, on the grounds it
is not in order on a general appropriation bill under clause 5 of
rule XXI. This language provides for the reappropriation of funds
previously made available and is not permitted under the rules of
the House--paragraph 5 of rule XXI which reads, in pertinent part,
as follows:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations.
It is true that the mutual security authorization law
authorizes reappropriation of unexpended balances, but that
authority was last contained in section 548 enacted in calendar
year 1956. Subsequent to that time, and at the beginning of the
86th Congress, the House adopted rules from which I have just read.
Inasmuch as this rulemaking action occurred subsequent to the
latest action by law, and there has been no enactment by statute on
the particular matter during the present Congress, the rules of the
House govern in this situation. Furthermore, it is well settled in
the precedents that the power of the House to make its own rules
may not be impaired by a law passed by a prior Congress. Therefore,
I ask that my point of order be sustained.
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was considerate enough to advise us
in advance of his intention to make this point of order.
[[Page 5014]]
He has stated the facts of the matter accurately. I have discussed
this point of order with other Members and we have carefully
reviewed the situation. Most regretfully I must concede that the
point of order is well taken.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later Statute as Superseding Rule
Sec. 3.7 Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), relating to the
reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations, is not
applicable when the reappropriation language is identical to the
authorization language enacted subsequent to adoption of the rule;
thus, where the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. No. 87-195)
specifically provided that ``unexpended balances of funds made
available under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 . . . are hereby
authorized to be continued available for general purposes for which
appropriated,'' the Speaker pro tempore held that a provision in an
appropriation bill reappropriating the unexpended balances of such
funds was in order, notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause
6), since the legislative authorization bill was a more recent
expression of the will of the House.
On Sept. 5, 1961,<SUP>(4)</SUP> Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a
point of order against consideration of a bill (H.R. 9033) making
appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies for fiscal
year 1962. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 107 Cong. Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the Chair to the Rules of
the House of Representatives, 87th Congress, rule XXI, paragraph 5,
which reads as follows:
No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be
received or considered if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations; except
that this provision shall not apply to appropriations in
continuation of appropriations for public works on which work
has commenced.
Mr. Speaker, the language is explicit and there is only one
exception; that is for public works bills. I submit that this is
not a public works bill.
Mr. Speaker, I call attention of the Chair to the language
contained in H.R. 9033 for which consideration is asked, on page 3
of that bill, lines 8 through 24.
Unobligated balances (not to exceed $50,000,000) as of June
30,
[[Page 5015]]
1961, of funds heretofore made available for military
assistance under the authority of the Mutual Security Act of
1954, as amended, are, except as otherwise provided by law,
hereby continued available for the fiscal year 1962 for the
same general purposes for which appropriated.
Further, Mr. Speaker, section 101 on the same page reads:
Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated
against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of
the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, for the same
general purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic
assistance'' except the subparagraph of this title for
``Administrative expenses,'' are hereby continued available for
the same period as the respective appropriations in such
subparagraphs for the same general purpose.
Mr. Speaker, the language which I have read relates to funds
not in the bill and clearly reappropriates unexpended balances of
appropriations in violation of the rules of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The Chair is prepared
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was
passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President
yesterday, and is now Public Law 87-195, specifically authorizes:
Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to the
Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, are hereby authorized
to be continued available for the general purposes for which
appropriated, and may at any time be consolidated, and, in
addition, may be consolidated with appropriations made
available for the same general purposes under the authority of
this act.
That is the will of both branches of the Congress as expressed
very recently. The language in the pending appropriation bill is
identical and consistent with the authority contained in section
645.
The Chair overrules the point of order, for the reason that the
recent act of the Congress makes the actions of the Committee on
Appropriations pursuant to law.<SUP>(6)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the House, 87th Congress
(including Rule XXI clause 5) were adopted on Jan. 3, 1961 (H.
Res. 8). The foreign-aid authorization bill (S. 1983) was
signed by the President on Sept. 4, 1961 (becoming Pub. L. No.
87-195). Section 645 of this law contained a specific
authorization for the reappropriation of certain unexpended
balances of mutual security funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.8 Language in an appropriation bill continuing the availability
of unobligated balances of prior appropriations was held in order
where provisions of the original authorizing legislation still in
effect had provided for such a reappropriation, and a dollar
limitation in the current authorization bill was interpreted to be
a limitation on new appropriations only and not to restrict
[[Page 5016]]
the reappropriation of unexpended balances of prior year funds.
On Sept. 8, 1965,<SUP>(7)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 10871, a foreign-aid appropriation bill for fiscal
1966. The Clerk read the following portion of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23181, 23182, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3, line 19:
Unobligated balances as of June 30, 1965, of funds
heretofore made available under the authority of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, except as otherwise
provided by law, are hereby continued available for the fiscal
year 1966, for the same general purposes for which appropriated
and amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955, as having been obligated
against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of
the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, for the same general
purpose as any of the subparagraphs under ``Economic
Assistance'' are hereby continued available for the same period
as the respective appropriations in such subparagraphs for the
same general purpose: Provided, That such purpose relates to a
project or program previously justified to Congress and the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate are notified prior to the reobligation of funds
for such projects or programs.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language appearing on page 3, beginning with line
19 and running through the remainder of that page to and through
line 13 on page 4.
I made the point of order on the basis that the authorization
bill contains section 649, which reads as follows:
Sec. 649. Limitation on aggregate authorization for use in
fiscal year 1966.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the aggregate of the total amounts authorized to be
appropriated for use during the fiscal year 1966, for
furnishing assistance and for administrative expenses under
this Act shall not exceed $3,360,000,000.
Mr. Chairman, I point out that listed at the top of page 3 of
the committee report is the ``carryover from prior year
appropriations,'' in the amount of $158,352,000, which is a part of
the unobligated carryover that is controlled under the language
which I seek to strike under the point of order. There is further
``deobligations of prior-year obligations'' listed in the report at
the top of page 3. This is also controlled under the language that
I seek to have stricken under the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to find the total amounts of all
appropriations contained in the language to be found on pages 3 and
4, to which I have referred, but in order that this bill to be made
to conform to the new section that was written into the
authorization bill, which has been signed by the President of the
United States and is now law, I submit that the language in the
bill to which I have referred must be stricken.
The Chairman: <SUP>(8)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Louisiana
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5017]]
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
It appears to me that we are dealing with two different acts.
Under the authorizing legislation there was a ceiling of $3,360
million of new appropriations. The bill before the House calls for
only $3,285 million in new appropriations. Some part of the
previous money appropriated is 1-year funds and does not
necessarily carry over, and we are following the language in the
authorizing legislation itself.
I refer to section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as
amended:
Unexpended balances of funds made available pursuant to
this Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended or Public
Law 86-735 are hereby authorized to be continued available for
the general purposes for which appropriated, and may at any
time be consolidated, and, in addition, may be consolidated
with appropriations made available for the same general
purposes under the authority of this Act.
Mr. Passman further made the argument, apparently accepted by the
Chair, that since section 645 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 had
not been deleted from the current bill in conference, it appeared the
conference intended that the right to continue unobligated funds should
remain in the authorization.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa made his point of order against the
language on line 19, page 3, and through line 13 on page 4.
The Chair, after careful examination of the sections in the
conference report referred to by the various Members who have
commented on this point of order, is constrained to agree that the
language found in the conference report on page 25 referred to
authorizations contained in that particular bill and pertains only
to new money.
There is a definite feeling on the part of the Chair that it
did not pertain to carryover funds or to the making available of
funds which under section 645 would remain and continue to be
available.
The Chair feels that section 645 is sufficient to make these
carryover funds in order and the Chair, therefore, overrules the
point of order.
Transfer of Funds
Sec. 3.9 A section in a general appropriation bill requiring the
availability of funds available in other acts for employment of
guards for government buildings and conferring certain powers on
those guards and on the Postmaster General was conceded to be
subject to a point of order and was ruled out as in violation of
Rule XXI clauses 2 and 5 (clause 5 is now clause 6).
On Aug. 1, 1973,<SUP>(9)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury, postal
[[Page 5018]]
service, and executive office appropriations bill (H.R. 9590) for
fiscal 1974, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, raised a point of order
against certain language in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 119 Cong. Rec. 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 610. Funds made available by this or any other Act to the
``Building management fund'' (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), and the ``Postal
service fund'' (39 U.S.C. 2003), shall be available for employment
of guards for all buildings and areas owned or occupied by the
United States or the Postal Service and under the charge and
control of the General Services Administration or the Postal
Service, and such guards shall have, with respect to such property,
the powers of special policemen provided by the first section of
the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), but shall
not be restricted to certain Federal property as otherwise required
by the proviso contained in said section, and, as to property owned
or occupied by the Postal Service, the Postmaster General may take
the same actions as the Administrator of General Services may take
under the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948
(62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a, 318b) attaching thereto penal
consequences under the authority and within the limits provided in
section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C.
318c).
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make, again, the same point of
order against the entirety of section 610, beginning with line 4 on
page 36.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(10)</SUP> The point of order is conceded
and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holman Rule Not Applicable
Sec. 3.10 A reappropriation of unexpended balances, prohibited by Rule
XXI clause 5 (now clause 6), is not in order on a general
appropriation bill under the guise of a Holman rule exception to
Rule XXI clause 2.
On Oct. 18, 1966,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 18381, a supplemental appropriation bill. Proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 16 after line 3 add a new
section as follows:
Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision,
appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall,
not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, be reduced in the aggregate by not less than
$1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer
of funds previously appropriated for governmental activities
that the President, within the aforementioned 120 days, shall
have determined to be excess to the necessities of the services
and objects for which appropriated.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against this amendment.
[[Page 5019]]
The Chairman: <SUP>(12)</SUP> The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the amendment goes far
beyond the scope of this bill and applies to funds made available
by other laws for which appropriations are not provided in the
pending measure.
I make the further point of order that the amendment would
obviously impose additional duties on the President.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Yes, I do wish to be heard, Mr.
Chairman.
With respect to this amendment I shall not repeat the
provisions of the Holman rule.
I believe we have changed the Holman rule today by making it
relate to this bill. The previous precedents of the House have been
it must not necessarily apply to this particular bill when there is
a retrenchment so, we are making new precedents today.
This is a general appropriation bill affecting various
agencies. Since the amendment also deals with and affects various
appropriations of various agencies, it is germane.
Again, there can be no speculation as to its retrenching
Federal expenditures because it reduces appropriations in this
bill--in this bill by $1.5 billion and requires the President to
fund activities in this bill from previously appropriated funds
that are excess to the necessities of the services and objects for
which appropriated.
I point out again that the Holman rule does not go along with
the decision suggested by the distinguished chairman of the
committee that additional duties are involved.
Under the Holman rule it is a question of retrenchment of
expenditures.
The legislation in this amendment is not unrelated to the
retrenchment of expenditures. Instead, it is directly instrumental
in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures. Thus, the proposed
retrenchment and the legislation are inseparable and must be
considered together.
``Cannon's Precedents'', in volume VII, 1550 and 1551, holds
that an amendment may include such legislation as is directly
instrumental in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures
proposed. That is the precise situation with respect to this
pending amendment.
Again I cite ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VII, 1511, which
holds that language admitted under the Holman rule is not
restricted in its application to the pending bill, and to the June
1, 1892, decision, to which I referred before, of the Committee of
the Whole and its Chairman, that an amendment was in order under
the Holman rule even though it changed existing law.
I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if this is held to be out of
order we will be changing the precedents and the rules of the
House, and we will be destroying the Holman rule.
I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio specifies that
appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall be
reduced in the ag
[[Page 5020]]
gregate by not less than $1.5 billion. This reduction would be
achieved by authorizing and directing the President to utilize
previously appropriated funds for the activities carried in this
bill.
The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. It
places additional determinations and duties on the President and
involves funds other than those carried in this bill.
Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have
to qualify, as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the
Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is
inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum
which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held
not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule.
Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruled to the same effect when a
proposition involving the Holman rule was before the House on
January 26, 1921.
Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) authorizes the reappropriation of
unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in
this bill and is not germane.
With respect to the latter point and the citation that has been
given by the gentleman from Ohio, which is found in the precedents
of the House, volume VII, 1511, the Chair will note that the
proposition reduced the number of Army officers and provided the
method by which the reduction should be accomplished. It was an
amendment, as it appears in the citation, to a War Department
appropriation bill and was therefore germane in spite of whatever
the general proposition in the heading may have stated.
For the reasons given, the Chair will sustain the point of
order made by the gentleman from Texas.
Limitation of Funds in Bill so Long as Previously Appropriated Funds
Remain Unexpended
Sec. 3.11 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no part
of the funds therein should be available for expenditure so long as
the funds theretofore appropriated for such purpose and unexpended
exceeded three billion dollars, was held to be a proper limitation
and not an affirmative reappropriation of unexpended balances.
On July 11, 1955,<SUP>(13)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10235, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained
in this act
[[Page 5021]]
shall be available for expense of transportation . . . and
unpacking of household goods and personal effects in excess of an
average of 5,000 pounds net but not exceeding 9,000 pounds net in
any one shipment, but the limitations imposed herein shall not be
applicable in the case of employees transferred to or serving in
stations outside the continental United States under orders
relieving them from a duty station within the United States prior
to August 1, 1953.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten: On page 9, after line 9,
add the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds herein
appropriated shall be available for expenditure so long as the
funds heretofore appropriated for such purposes and unexpended
by the Mutual Security Administration exceed $3 billion.''
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill and that it attempts to reappropriate money
previously appropriated. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(14)</SUP> As the Chair understands it, the
amendment provides a very definite limitation to this
appropriation. In the opinion of the Chair it is merely a
limitation and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reappropriations Permitted Prior to Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946
Sec. 3.12 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited it,<SUP>(15)</SUP> the reappropriation of funds carried
in a prior appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law was
held in order on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 6, 1944,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5587, a supplemental appropriation bill. An amendment
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 8941, 8942, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 89 Cong.
Rec. 1068-70, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 17, 1943; 81 Cong.
Rec. 3799, 3800, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 19, line 3, insert:
``Conservation and Use of Agricultural Land Resources
``The funds appropriated in the Department of Agriculture
Appropriation Act, 1945, under the head `Conservation and Use of
Agricultural Land Resources,' notwithstanding any allocation
thereof heretofore made by departmental order, may be used to
discharge in full payments and grants earned by farmers in carrying
out authorized soil and water conservation practices.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill and that it changes existing law.
[[Page 5022]]
It is apparent from the reading of it that if it were not
legislation, there would be no occasion for offering it, that if it
did not require legislation to permit the reallocation of these
funds there is no reason why the Department would not have done it
before. There would be nothing to stop it. So it is perfectly
apparent that this is legislation. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> The Chair holds that this is a
reappropriation of formerly appropriated money, so as to carry out
existing law and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.13 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited reappropriations,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the reappropriation of
unobligated or unexpended balances for purposes authorized by law
was in order, even though for different purposes than those for
which originally appropriated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 28, 1936,<SUP>(1)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.
The following portion of the bill was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong. Rec. 2987, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Aid Highway System
For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to
provide that the United States shall aid the States in the
construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes'',
approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355-359), and all acts
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, to be expended in
accordance with the provisions of said act, as amended, including
not to exceed $556,000 for departmental personal services in the
District of Columbia, $60,000,000 to be immediately available and
to remain available until expended, which sum is part of the sum of
$125,000,000 authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
1936, by section 4 of the act approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat.
994). . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 70, line 24, after
``$60,000,000'', insert the following: ``of the unobligated
balances of funds allocated for other purposes than road and
grade-crossing eliminations appropriated by Public Resolution
No. 11, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved April 8, 1935.''
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order that it is legislation upon an appropriation.
. . .
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is clearly in error,
because this is a pure reappropriation of funds that were
appropriated under the act of April 8, 1935, out of unobligated
balances other than those providing for the elimination of grade
crossings and roads. It involves a reappropriation only. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(2)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5023]]
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] seeks to reappropriate certain unobligated funds heretofore
appropriated. The Chair has before him a syllabus which is directly
applicable to the point raised. It may be found in Cannon's
Precedents, section 1158, and is as follows:
The reappropriation of unexpended balances for purposes
authorized by law is in order, even though for different
purposes than those for which originally appropriated.
The Chair thinks, therefore, that the amendment is in order,
and overrules the point of order.
Sec. 3.14 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which
prohibited it,<SUP>(3)</SUP> the reappropriation of an unexpended
balance could be made in a general appropriation bill; but a
reappropriation of an unexpended balance, to be applied to projects
unauthorized by law, was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Act of Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, Sec. 139(c), 60 Stat. 833; Rule XXI
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 1937,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment a paragraph of the bill H.R. 6958, an
Interior Department appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4684, 4685, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong.
Rec. 2370, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For administrative expenses on account of the above projects,
including personal services and other expenses in the District of
Columbia and in the field, $750,000, in addition to and for the
same objects of expenditure as are hereinbefore enumerated in
paragraphs 2 and 3 under the caption ``Bureau of Reclamation''; in
all, $9,500,000, to be immediately available: Provided, That of
this amount not to exceed $75,000 may be expended for personal
services in the District of Columbia: Provided further, That the
unexpended balances of the amounts appropriated from the
Reclamation Fund, Special Fund, under the caption ``Bureau of
Reclamation, Construction,'' in the Interior Department
Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937, shall remain available for the
same purposes for the fiscal year 1938.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the language on page 79, line 4, beginning with
the word ``Provided'' down to the end of the paragraph.
Mr. Chairman, this includes a lot of allotments to irrigation
projects, which would expire on the 30th of June, amounting to
$33,000,000. As I understand, a great many of them have not been
authorized by law. There is included, amongst others, the Gila
project that was ruled out on a point of order previously. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair invites attention to the fact it is obvious that
quite a number
[[Page 5024]]
of projects are sought to be covered by the provision here
contained. The Chair feels that under the rule cited by the
gentleman from Nevada there can be no question but what
unappropriated balances may be reappropriated, but the Chair is
unable to see how this rule meets the situation here presented,
because the question here is whether or not these various projects
have been authorized by law. The Chair feels the burden of proof is
on those supporting the projects and the provision contained in the
bill to make some satisfactory showing, to the effect that the
projects have been authorized. The Chair invites attention to the
fact that such a showing has not been made. It follows, therefore,
that the language to which the point of order has been made, in the
opinion of the Chair, would be legislation on an appropriation
bill, a proper showing not having been made that these items have
been authorized by law.
The Chair is of the opinion this provision is not in order and,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
Works in Progress
Sec. 3.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the Public
Works Administration allotments (made available to the Bureau of
Reclamation, pursuant to the National Industrial Recovery Act,
either by direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally
made from the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937) should
remain available for the purpose for which allotted during the
fiscal year 1939 was held in order under the principle relating to
``works in progress.''
On Mar. 2, 1938,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering the following paragraph of H.R. 9621, an Interior
Department appropriation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Works Administration allotments made available to
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to
the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by
direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to
another Department or agency, and the allocations made to the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the
appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act
of 1935 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, shall
remain available for the purposes for which allotted during the
fiscal year 1939.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it is not
authorized by law.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Nevada
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the
unexpended
[[Page 5025]]
balances proposed to be appropriated by this paragraph are lawful
projects which have qualified as being in order under the rules of
the House for one or more of the following reasons:
First. That they are for improvements of existing projects.
Second. That the work on them is in progress.
Third. That there has been a finding of feasibility by the
President, which automatically authorizes appropriations, as
provided by the reclamation law, title 43, sections 412, 413, and
414.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Nevada states that all of
these projects are already under way and that this paragraph simply
reappropriates money already available.
Mr. Taber: These allotments have been made for all sorts of
projects not authorized by law, and yet the adoption of this
provision would authorize every project that has not yet been
authorized for which an allotment has been made.
The Chairman: The gentleman states that these projects are
already under way.
Mr. Taber: That would not authorize them.
The Chairman: It authorizes reappropriation of appropriations
heretofore made if the work is in progress. The Chair, therefore,
overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While this decision predates the enactment
of clause 5 (now clause 6) of Rule XXI as part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (which rule prohibits the reappropriation of
unexpended balances except with respect to appropriations in connection
with appropriations for public works on which work has commenced),
clause 2 of Rule XXI, in effect on the date of this decision, likewise
precluded appropriations for purposes not authorized by law unless in
continuation of appropriations for public works and objects already in
progress. Thus this decision stands for the proposition that
reappropriations of unexpended balances may be included on general
appropriation bills at least if made for the same unauthorized public
works in progress for which originally made. For a discussion of
precedents involving public works in progress, see Chapter 26, infra
(including a similar ruling made on May 13, 1941, discussed in that
chapter).