[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-5]
[Page 5025-5084]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 4. Appropriations in Legislative Bills
A House rule provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be
reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an appropriation
be in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution
reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of
order on an
[[Page 5026]]
appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment
thereto may be raised at any time.<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulings on points of order under the above provision have
frequently depended on whether language allegedly making an
appropriation was in fact merely language authorizing an
appropriation.<SUP>(9)</SUP> For example, language in a bill
authorizing an appropriation of not less than a certain amount for a
specified purpose has been held not to be an
appropriation.<SUP>(10)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 4.34 et seq., infra.
10. See Sec. 4.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of order under this rule, while in order ``at any time,''
are received at any time while the amendment or provision of the bill
is pending under the five-minute rule. See discussion in notes at House
Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1981), citing decision of Mar. 18, 1946.
Points of order based on the above rule have sometimes been waived
by resolution.<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 4.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally
Sec. 4.1 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
reappropriating, making available or diverting an appropriation or
a portion of an appropriation already made for one purpose to
another is not in order.
On Apr. 7, 1936,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the House was considering H.R.
12037, the tobacco compact bill. A point of order was raised and, after
debate, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 5108, 5109, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] makes a point of order
against section 7(a), which reads as follows:
For the purpose of administering this act the Secretary of
Agriculture is hereby authorized to expend $300,000, or so much
thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, out of funds
appropriated by section 12(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act, as amended.
The gentleman from Michigan calls attention to clause 4 of rule
XXI, which provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any
such bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised
at any time.
The question, of course, arises as to whether or not an
appropriation made by a preceding Congress or by this
[[Page 5027]]
Congress for a particular purpose may be diverted for another
purpose not contemplated at the time the appropriation was made,
under the rule which the Chair has just read.
The gentleman from Michigan has read rulings which were made in
the Seventy-third Congress, first session, in which it is said--
Language reappropriating, making available or diverting an
appropriation or a portion of an appropriation already made for
one purpose to another is not in order.
Of course, we all know that the Committee on Agriculture is not
authorized under the rules to report appropriations. In the opinion
of the Chair it is very clear, in a reading of the section referred
to, that the language constitutes a diversion of funds heretofore
made by the Congress for an entirely different purpose and,
therefore, sustains the point of order of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Mapes] against section 7(a).
Portion of Bill Subject to Point of Order
Sec. 4.2 Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) is limited in
application to the objectionable language in a bill and not to the
bill in its entirety.
The rule cited above has been held to disallow the following
language in a bill reported by a legislative committee, without at the
same time disallowing the remainder of the bill:
Provided further, That out of revenues from and appropriations
for the Alaska Railroad, there is authorized to be used such amount
thereon as may be necessary for the purchase of property of the
Mount McKinley Tourist & Transportation Company, and the purchase,
construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities for the
public as herein authorized.
Thus, on Mar. 6, 1940,<SUP>(13)</SUP> a Member raised a point of
order against the language quoted above during consideration of H.R.
4868, a bill concerning Mount McKinley National Park. The following
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 2457, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen: I make the point of order against the entire bill
on the ground that the provisions beginning in line 23, on page 2,
are in contravention of the rule prohibiting appropriations in a
bill for legislative purposes.
Mr. [Robert A.] Green [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the
point of order and desire to offer an amendment.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: But, Mr. Chairman, under the
point of order the bill goes out.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Oh, no; it does not go out. The
enacting clause is still there, and anyone has
[[Page 5028]]
authority to offer any amendment that he desires under the rules of
the House.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
This provision comes under clause 4 of rule XXI, which, in
effect, prohibits appropriations being made by committees not
having jurisdiction over appropriations. Beginning with line 23 on
page 2 of the bill provision is made for an appropriation.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Waiver of Points of Order
Sec. 4.3 Consideration of a legislative bill has sometimes taken place
pursuant to a resolution waiving points of order against the bill,
when a provision in the bill could constitute an appropriation in
violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Apr. 12, 1967,<SUP>(15)</SUP> a Member addressed Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 9121-23, 9134, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 411 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 411
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to 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. 5404) to amend the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 to make changes and improvements
in the organization and operation of the Foundation, and for
other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are
hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit. . . .
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. . . .
I wonder if the gentleman can explain to the House why in line
7, page 1, House Resolution 411, all points of order against the
bill are waived in the wisdom of the committee?
Mr. Pepper: I will ask the distinguished author of the bill,
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Daddario], if he will make the
response to the able gentleman from Missouri, and I yield to him
for that purpose.
Mr. [Emilio Q.] Daddario: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I would advise the gentleman from Missouri that on
page 17, line 12, section (g), there is reference to the transfer
of funds from one department to another.
[[Page 5029]]
[Note: the language referred to sought to permit funds available to
any department of the government for scientific research to be
transferred to the National Science Foundation under certain
conditions.]
Transfer or Diversion of Funds to New Purposes
Sec. 4.4 The diversion or reappropriation of funds to a new purpose is
an appropriation and is therefore not in order on a rivers and
harbors bill.
On Apr. 8, 1935,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6732, a bill dealing with the construction, repair,
and preservation of public works on rivers and harbors. An amendment
was offered and a point of order raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 5277, 5278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which is on the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: On page 1, line 9, after the
word ``documents'', change the colon to a period and add the
following: ``The Administrator of Public Works is hereby
directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of
said authorized works of improvement of rivers and harbors and
other waterways, such sum or sums out of the funds provided in
House Joint Resolution 117 as may be necessary to prosecute and
complete such works or improvements.''
Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
make a point of order to the amendment. As I understand the
amendment, it is the equivalent of an appropriation. It applies to
a matter not within the jurisdiction of this committee. We have no
jurisdiction over legislation of the Public Works Administration.
Furthermore, I consider that amendment as an appropriation. . . .
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as I heard
the amendment read, it makes an appropriation, because it directs
the Administrator of Public Works to allocate part of the funds
already appropriated for these specific purposes. This is at least
a reappropriation and comes within the rule forbidding
appropriations coming from legislative committees. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> . . . This bill, of course,
cannot carry an appropriation. The gentleman offers an amendment to
the effect that the Administrator of Public Works is hereby
directed to allot and make available for the prosecution of such
authorized works of improvement on rivers and harbors and other
waterways such sum or sums from the funds provided in House Joint
Resolution 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William W. Arnold (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This, clearly, is a diversion of funds already appropriated,
which is tantamount, in the opinion of the Chair, to an
appropriation.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
[[Page 5030]]
Sec. 4.5 Language in a legislative bill to reorganize the government,
providing for the transfer of unexpended balances of appropriations
and making such funds available for expenditure, was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Apr. 8, 1938,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 3331, a government reorganization bill. At different
points the Clerk read two sections as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 5083-98, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 410. Such of the personnel of the General Accounting
Office employed in connection with the functions exercised by the
General Accounting Office through the Audit Division of that
Office, and such of the unexpended balances of appropriations
available to the General Accounting Office for the exercise of such
functions, as the President shall deem to be necessary to enable
the Auditor General to exercise the functions vested in and imposed
upon him by this title, are transferred to the office of the
Auditor General, and any unexpended balances of appropriations so
transferred shall hereafter be available to the Auditor General for
the purpose of exercising the functions of his office and for
otherwise carrying out the provisions of this title: Provided, That
the transfer of personnel under this section shall be without
change in classification or compensation . . . Provided further,
That such of the personnel so transferred who do not already
possess a classified civil-service status shall not acquire such
status by reason of such transfer. . . .
Sec. 307. There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Sec. 308. The provisions of this title shall become effective
60 days after its enactment.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the words beginning in line 4, of page 57, ``and such
of the unexpended balances of appropriations available to the
General Accounting Office for the exercise of such functions''; and
then, beginning in line 10, ``and any unexpended balances of
appropriations so transferred shall hereafter be available to the
auditor general for the purpose of exercising the functions of his
office and for otherwise carrying out the provisions of this
title.''
Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> The Chair sustains the point of
order on the ground that it is in conflict with clause 4 of Rule
XXI and the language to which the point of order is addressed is
stricken from the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently in the proceedings, a point of order based on
[[Page 5031]]
the same grounds was sustained against the following language:
Sec. 420. Such portions of the unexpended balances of
appropriations or other funds available for the United States Civil
Service Commission, the offices of the Civil Service Commissioners,
and all other offices of such Commission, as the President shall
deem necessary, are transferred to the Administration. Unexpended
balances of appropriations or other funds available for such
Commission or offices, not so transferred pursuant to the
President's determination under this section, shall be impounded
and returned to the Treasury.
Sec. 4.6 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing that such part as the President might determine of the
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds
available for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer
District were transferred to the commission and were to be
available for expenditure for carrying out the provisions of the
act was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause
4 (now clause 5), and not in order.
On July 20, 1946,<SUP>(20)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1717, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. At one point the
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 9554, 9555, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Sec. 18. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the
provisions and purposes of this act. The acts appropriating such
sums may appropriate specified portions thereof to be accounted for
upon the certification of the Commission only. Funds appropriated
to the Commission shall, if obligated by contract during the fiscal
year for which appropriated, remain available for expenditure for 4
years following the expiration of the fiscal year for which
appropriated. After such 4-year period, the unexpended balances of
appropriations shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered
into the Treasury.
(b) Such part as the President may determine of the unexpended
balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds available
for expenditure in connection with the Manhattan Engineer District
are hereby transferred to the Commission and shall be available for
expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
act.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against subparagraph (b) on page 52, lines 18 to 23,
inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes an appropriation and
may not be reported by the Committee on Military Affairs, which is
without jurisdiction to report appropriations. I am constrained to
make this point of order, Mr. Chair
[[Page 5032]]
man, for two or three reasons. The appropriations now carried in
the War Department appropriation bill for $375,000,000 were made in
a larger amount than would have been made for 1 year only because
the Budget request was for only $200,000,000. The additional
$175,000,000 was added in place of contractual authorizations for
obligations to mature in fiscal 1948. The total appropriation was
made for the military features of the atomic service. It is now
proposed that these appropriations be transferred for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of this act, which is much broader,
providing for loans, providing for the development of civilian
production and licensing, and many other features not contemplated
in the appropriations for the Military Establishment. Consequently,
this paragraph constitutes an appropriation, and I make the point
of order that it may not be reported in this bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(1)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Kentucky
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the
Chair, the language referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota,
beginning on line 18, page 52, and extending through line 23, is in
violation of clause 4 of rule 21. Therefore, the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.7 To a bill establishing an Airways Modernization Board and
providing for transfer of personnel, records, and the like,
authority to transfer ``unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and other funds available,'' was ruled out as an
appropriation reported from a legislative committee in violation of
Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 30, 1957,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for the development and
modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control
facilities to serve present and future needs of civil and military
aviation. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 103 Cong. Rec. 13056, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Related Functions
Sec. 4. The Board, upon unanimous decision and with approval of
the President, may transfer to itself any functions (including
powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of
the Departments of Defense or Commerce or of any officer or
organizational entity thereof which relate primarily to selecting,
developing, testing, or evaluating systems, procedures, facilities,
or devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic
control. In connection with any such transfer, the President may
provide for appropriate transfers of records, property, necessary
civilian personnel, and unex
[[Page 5033]]
pended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available or to be made available of the officers, department, or
other agency from which the transfer is made.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language in section 4, page 7, beginning on line 12, reading ``and
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
available or'' as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Arkansas desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has
examined the language to which the point of order has been made,
and after consideration finds that the language is obnoxious to
clause 4 of rule 21 of the House and therefore sustains the point
of order.
Sec. 4.8 In a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency,
providing inter alia, a revolving fund in the Treasury for higher
education facility loans, a provision authorizing the Commissioner
of Education to ``transfer to the fund available appropriations
under Sec. 303(c) [of the Higher Education Act] to provide capital
for the fund,'' was held to constitute an appropriation and was
ruled out as a violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 18, 1966,<SUP>(4)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Participation Sales Act of 1966 (H.R.
14544) a point of order was raised against a provision thereof, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 10913, 10918, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolving Loan Fund
``Sec. 305. (a) There is hereby created within the Treasury a
separate fund for higher education academic facilities loans
(hereafter in this section called ``the fund'') which shall be
available to the Commissioner without fiscal year limitation as a
revolving fund for the purposes of this title. The total of any
loans made from the fund in any fiscal year shall not exceed
limitations specified in appropriation Acts.
``(b)(1) The Commissioner is authorized to transfer to the fund
available appropriations provided under section 303(c) to provide
capital for the fund. All amounts received by the Commissioner as
interest payments or repayments of principal on loans, and any
other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from his
operations in connection with this title, including any moneys
derived directly or indirectly from the sale of assets, or
beneficial interests or participations in as
[[Page 5034]]
sets of the fund, shall be deposited in the fund. . . .''
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the language on page 8 of the bill,
lines 5, 6, and 7 through the word ``fund.'' The point is based
upon my feeling that the language violates rule XXI, clause 4, of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be
heard on the point of order.
The appropriations referred to are future appropriations
authorized and to be made for the specific purpose of making the
transfers here authorized. This is not a case of changing the
object of past appropriations, and the point of order should be
overruled.
That refers to section 303(c), which I have before me now. It
provides:
For the purpose of making payments into the fund
established under section 305, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated . . . .
It is not making the appropriation; it is authorizing the
appropriation.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not subject
to the point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> . . . The gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Jonas] makes a point of order to the language
appearing on page 8, lines 5 through 7, to the end of the sentence
on that line, on the ground that it is in violation of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the language and has listened
attentively to the gentleman from Texas, but is of the opinion that
since this language directs a transfer of available appropriations
it is in fact in violation of rule XXI; and therefore sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.9 Where a legislative bill (reported from the Committee on
Banking and Currency) authorized certain government agencies that
extend credit to individuals to use any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to them for certain new purposes specified in the
bill, the provision was conceded to be in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 18, 1966,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966. At one
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 112 Cong. Rec. 10893, 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. (a) Section 302(c) of the Federal National Mortgage
Association Charter Act is amended [by inserting at a designated
point]:
. . . Any trustor creating a trust or trusts hereunder is
authorized to purchase, through the facilities of the trustee,
outstanding beneficial interests or participations to the extent of
the amount of his responsibility to the trustee on beneficial
interests or par
[[Page 5035]]
ticipations outstanding, and to pay his proper share of the costs
and expenses incurred by the Federal National Mortgage Association
as trustee pursuant to the trust instrument, and for these purposes
may use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him
for the general purposes or programs to which the obligations
subjected to the trust are related.
(3) If any trustor shall guarantee to the trustee the timely
payment of obligations he subjects to a trust pursuant to this
subsection, and it becomes necessary for such trustor to meet his
responsibilities under such guaranty, he is authorized to fulfill
such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other amounts
available to him for the general purposes or programs to which the
obligations subjected to the trust are related. . . .
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing on page 4, line 22, beginning with the word
``and'', which language is as follows: ``and for these purposes may
use any appropriated funds or other amounts available to him for
the general purposes or programs to which the obligations subjected
to the trust are related.''
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language
in the bill on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of
the rules of the House of Representatives, which requires that
bills making appropriations may not originate in committees other
than the Committee on Appropriations.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the
point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word
``he'' and continuing through lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the word
``related,'' which language is as follows: ``he is authorized to
fulfill such guaranty by using any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to
which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this language
on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from North
Carolina has added some language which he does not really intend to
include in his point of order? As I understand, the gentleman
intended to make a point of order against the language on page 5,
line 5, starting with the word ``by'' down to and including the
word ``related'' on line 8. In other words, as I understand, the
gentleman intends to make a point of order against the language
reading as follows: ``by using any appropriated funds or other
amounts available to him for the general purposes or programs to
which the obligations subjected to the trust are related.''
[[Page 5036]]
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is correct
and it was my purpose to have the point of order lie against the
language on page 5, line 5, beginning with the word ``by'' down to
and including the word ``related'' on line 8.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against this
language on the ground that it violates clause 4, rule XXI, of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Unobligated Funds Previously Appropriated for Same or Related Purposes
Sec. 4.10 Language in a legislative bill providing that the cost of
surveys therein authorized would be paid from the appropriation
theretofore or thereafter made for such purposes was held to be an
appropriation and therefore in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now
clause 5).
On July 29, 1937,<SUP>(8)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 175, a bill to authorize the
submission to Congress of a comprehensive national plan for the
prevention and control of floods of all the major rivers of the United
States. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 7838-40, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
resolution.
With the following committee amendment:
Strike out all of section 2 and insert: ``The cost of
surveys and preparing plans as herein authorized shall be paid
from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such
purposes.''
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to
have to make a point of order against the committee amendment. The
amendment changes the authorization to a direct appropriation, and,
of course, an appropriation is not in order on a legislative bill.
. . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(9)</SUP> The language against which the
point of order is raised reads as follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of surveys and preparing plans as herein
authorized shall be paid from the appropriations heretofore or
hereafter made for such purposes. . . .
It seems clear to the Chair that the language of the amendment
is prohibited by rule XXI, section 4, and, therefore, the Chair
sustains the point of order.
Sec. 4.11 Language in a legislative bill making available unobligated
balances of appropria
[[Page 5037]]
tions ``heretofore'' made to carry out the provisions of the bill
was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4
(now clause 5) and therefore not in order.
On Mar. 18, 1946,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal
Works Administrator. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 2371, 2372, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it enacted, etc., That the Federal Works Administrator is
hereby authorized under the provisions of the Public Buildings Act
of May 25, 1926, as amended (40 U.S.C. 341-347), and as hereby
further amended--
(a) For projects outside of the District of Columbia: To
construct extensions to the marine hospitals at Seattle, Wash., and
San Francisco, Calif. . . . and design new building projects where
the sites are in Government ownership, notwithstanding the fact
that appropriations for construction work shall not have been made.
The total limit of cost for the foregoing shall be $13,000,000 and
the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made for the
construction of projects outside the District of Columbia are
hereby made available for this purpose.
(b) To construct an additional building for the General
Accounting Office.
. . . The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore
made for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged
project, including the acquisition of addition land, and contracts
may be entered into for construction work within the full limit of
cost pending additional appropriations.
(c) To acquire additional land in and contiguous to the area in
the District of Columbia defined in the act of March 31, 1938 (52
Stat. 149), under a limit of cost of $2,000,000. Funds for this
purpose are hereby made available from the unobligated balances of
appropriations heretofore made for the construction of buildings
outside the District of Columbia.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(11)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fadjo Cravens (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I make a point of order against the words beginning
on page 2, line 4: ``and the unobligated balances of appropriations
heretofore made for the construction of projects outside the
District of Columbia are hereby made available for this purpose'';
on the ground that it is an appropriation and coming from a
committee not authorized to report appropriation bills to the
House. . . .
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to make a point of order against the language in paragraph (b) and
paragraph (c), and in paragraph (b) I make the point of order
against the language beginning in line 15 which reads:
The unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made
for the building are hereby made available for the enlarged
project, including the acquisition of additional land,
[[Page 5038]]
and contracts may be entered into for construction work within
the full limit of cost pending additional appropriations. . . .
Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: I call the gentleman's
attention to the fact that there is a committee amendment striking
out section (b).
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the committee amendment has not
been made. Consequently, I am making a point of order lest, by some
slip, the amendment might not be accepted. I make the point of
order that that would make appropriations for an unauthorized
project by means of an appropriation reported by a committee
without jurisdiction. . . .
Mr. Lanham: Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly concede the points
of order. I do it reluctantly because I had hoped they would not be
made.
The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from
Texas concedes each point of order?
Mr. Lanham: The gentleman from Texas does reluctantly concede
the points of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Taber] and the two points of order made by the gentleman from South
Dakota [Mr. Case] are sustained by reason of the fact the language
against which they are made is tantamount to new appropriations;
and the language is stricken from the bill in each instance.
Sec. 4.12 Provisions in a bill reported from a legislative committee
that funds appropriated and made available under specified items in
the Agricultural Appropriation Act of 1946, to the extent that such
funds have been validly obligated, should be continued available
for use by the Farmers' Home Corporation established in the bill,
and that certain appropriated funds should be transferred from one
agency to another agency created in the bill, were held to be
appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5),
and therefore not in order.
On Apr. 9, 1946,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5991, a bill creating the Farmers' Home Corporation.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 3375, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have
several points of order to submit.
My first point of order is against the language contained on
page 5, lines 4 to 15, inclusive, on the ground that it constitutes
an appropriation upon a legislative bill and is out of order for
that reason. That language reads as follows:
(c) The funds appropriated, authorized to be borrowed, and
made available under the items ``Farmers' crop production and
harvesting loans' (under the heading ``Farm Credit
Administration''), ``Loans,
[[Page 5039]]
grants, and rural rehabilitation'', and ``Farm tenancy'', in
the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1946, to the
extent that such funds are validly obligated or committed by
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of the Farm Credit
Administration, or their delegates, shall not lapse on June 30,
1946, but shall be continued available for use by the
Corporation in fulfilling such obligations or commitments,
subject to the limitations set forth in the acts appropriating
or authorizing such funds.
I make the same point of order against the language contained
on page 6, lines 4 to 18, inclusive, as follows:
(e) All funds made available by appropriation or
authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture for the fiscal
year 1947 for loans and administrative expenses for carrying on
the farm tenancy program shall be available to the Corporation
for loans under the provisions of section 40(d)(13)(A) hereof
and for administrative expenses incident thereto. All such
appropriations and authorizations for loans, grants, and rural
rehabilitation and farmers' crop production and harvesting
loans shall be available to the Corporation for loans for the
purposes of section 40(d)(13)(B) hereof and for administrative
expenses incident thereto. The limitations on the amounts of
each such appropriations and authorization for loans and
administrative expenses for each such purpose shall be observed
by the Corporation.
I make the same point of order against the language contained
on page 6, lines 19 to 25, inclusive, and on page 7, lines 1 to 5,
as follows:
(f) There is hereby transferred to the Corporation from the
revolving fund established for the purpose of increasing the
capital of the regional agricultural credit corporations,
pursuant to section 84 of the Farm Credit Act of 1933, approved
June 16, 1933, as amended (U.S.C., 1940 ed., title 12, sec.
1148a), $10,001,000. $1,000 of the funds so transferred shall
be used for capital of the Corporation, as provided in section
40(b)(1) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended, and
$10,000,000 of such funds shall be covered into the farm tenant
mortgage insurance fund, pursuant to section 11(a) of the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended.
Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, while
I am not certain, I am afraid the points of order are well taken.
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> The points of order are well
taken. The Chair sustains the points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip A. Traynor (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.13 Language in a bill authorizing participation by the United
States in the International Development Association (which
prohibited further United States subscription to the fund ``except
that loans or other financing may be provided by [an] agency . . .
which is authorized . . . to make loans or provide other financing
to international organizations,'' which would have included funds
theretofore appropriated) was held to be in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), and ruled out
[[Page 5040]]
on a point of order where it was not clear that the exception
merely restated existing authority in law to make loans to this
particular organization.
On June 28, 1960,<SUP>(14)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11001, a bill providing for U.S. participation in the
International Development Association. At one point, the Clerk read as
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 14789, 14790, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5. Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither
the President nor any person or agency shall, on behalf of the
United States, (a) subscribe to additional funds under article III,
section 1, of the articles; (b) accept any amendment under article
IX of the articles; or (c) make a loan or provide other financing
to the Association, except that loans or other financing may be
provided to the Association by a U.S. agency created pursuant to an
act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide
other financing to international organizations.
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(15)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language on page 3, beginning at the end of line 4 down through
line 8, ``except that loans or other financing may be provided to
the Association by a United States agency created pursuant to an
act of Congress which is authorized by law to make loans or provide
other financing to international organizations.''
I will say to the Chair that I have made inquiry of the
committee here on the floor and the committee says that these are
organizations already in existence, with the possibility of
transfers being made under Public Law 480 or by other organizations
now authorized to make loans to these various countries. I make the
point of order that this is a transfer of appropriated funds and is
an appropriation on a legislative bill. . . .
Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: . . . I suggest that the
point of order should be overruled. I do not think I said anything
to indicate that there was any attempt to transfer any appropriated
funds or any authorized funds.
May I read from page 11 of the report which refers precisely to
the language now under attack by the point of order?
The excepting clause does not confer upon any U.S. agency
any authority it would not otherwise have and is intended to
make clear that the prohibitory language does not in any way
narrow, or preclude the use of, authority which any agency of
the U.S. Government, including the President, possesses under
other legislation to make loans or provide other financing to
international organizations, including the International
Development Association.
I suggest the point of order is not well taken.
Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to that and say that the one
I am
[[Page 5041]]
referring to is the exception to what the gentleman from New York
has just stated.
Mr. Multer: I have referred only to the language which begins
with the words against which the point of order is made. It is that
exception to which the report from which I have read is directed.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
from New York whether or not he interprets this to be that the U.S.
agencies could use funds heretofore appropriated for the purposes
of this section?
Mr. Multer: Only if so authorized by the enabling or enacting
legislation and the appropriation making the funds available to
such other agencies.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Under the
interpretation of the gentleman from New York, the point of order
would lie; and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Directing Treasury to Make Funds Available
Sec. 4.14 Language directing the Secretary of the Treasury to make a
certain fund available for the payment of
adjusted-service certificates was held to be an appropriation and
not in order on a legislative bill.
On Jan. 9, 1936,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted-service
certificates (bonus bill). The Clerk read an amendment as follows and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 273, 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 7, line 13, add section 6A,
as follows:
``The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to make the
exchange stabilization fund of $2,000,000,000 that expires on
January 30, 1936, available on that date for payment of the
adjusted-service certificates.''
Mr. [Jere] Cooper of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this
section or to any part of the bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> The Chair will hear the gentleman
from New York on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the bill
reads, ``To provide for the immediate payment of World War
adjusted-service certificates'', and my amendment offers a method
for the payment of these certificates. This is one of the many
means that may be proposed for the payment of these certificates,
and I should think there would be the greatest amount of latitude
by the Chair for any Member to offer a specific way of paying the
certificates.
The Chairman: The bill is merely an authorization for an
appropriation. The Chair thinks that a reading of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York clearly shows that the
amendment is an appropriation, and
[[Page 5042]]
not proper on this bill, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the
point of order.
Sec. 4.15 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
authorizing the Treasurer of the United States to honor
requisitions of the Archivist in such manner and in accordance with
such regulations as the Treasurer might prescribe was held an
appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5).
On July 13, 1939,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering Senate Joint Resolution 118, a bill to provide for the
establishment and maintenance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. The
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9060, 9061, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the section on the ground that it contains an
appropriation of public funds and that it is reported by a
committee not having jurisdiction to bring into the House an
appropriation bill.
I call the attention of the Chair to the following language on
page 6, in line 7:
The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to
honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and
in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from
time to time prescribe.
Those words take money directly from the Treasury of the United
States without any limitation and are in violation of the
provisions of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House. . . .
Now, this is a permanent appropriation which will go on forever
of whatever amount the Archivist cares to draw for upon the
Treasurer under such rules and regulations as the Treasurer may
from time to time prescribe. I make the point of order against the
section.
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> The Chair desires to direct a
question to the gentleman from New York. In line 8, on page 6, is
the gentleman of the opinion that the authorization there takes
money from the United States Treasury or merely honors
requisitions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: It authorizes the Treasurer of the United States,
without any further legislation, to take money right out of the
United States Treasury. It is a permanent appropriation.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it seems
to me that the point of order is ill taken for this reason: This is
not an appropriation. There is no appropriation provided in this at
all. It is simply and solely for the purpose of accepting the
requisitions of the proper authority in charge of all archives of
all kinds and character, because this bill provides that the
expense shall be appropriated for as a part of the Archivist's
expenses to the Government as a whole.
[[Page 5043]]
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I call
attention to the fact that the language in the section provides for
the creation of a trust fund to be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States. It provides for the raising of a trust fund to be
placed in the Treasury, and the language does not take appropriated
money out of the Treasury. It is not out of Government funds, but
out of the trust fund. It is not in itself a direct appropriation,
but more of an authorization for those in charge to draw on the
trust fund.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to
the fact that there is no limitation on the funds that this should
be taken out of. The way it reads it would be taken directly out of
the Treasury and not out of any trust fund whatever. It does not
say that it shall be taken out of a trust fund, nor is it implied
in any way.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York limit his point
of order to the sentence which he read?
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order against the
section.
Mr. Keller: Have you read what is at the bottom of page 5 as to
the method of depositing the money in the Treasury first?
Mr. Taber: Yes; I have read that. There is nothing whatever
that limits the amount that can be taken out to the amount that is
put in, nor is there anything whatever that limits it to being
taken out of that fund. It is direct authority to the Treasury to
pay it.
Mr. Keller: Well, what is a requisition, then?
Mr. Taber: A requisition is a draft upon the Treasurer. This
constitutes a permanent appropriation.
Mr. Keller: Only where the money is already provided, not where
it is not provided.
Mr. Taber: No; there is no such limitation.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the
gentleman from New York against the section is well taken, and
therefore sustains the point of order.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rayburn: I yield.
Mr. Taber: Will the gentleman tell us briefly what his
amendment does?
Mr. Rayburn: I may say to the gentleman from New York that I
conceded that his point of order was good.
The amendment I offer leaves out the language objected to by
the gentleman from New York in lines 7, 8, 9, and 10 on page 6,
reading:
The Treasurer of the United States is hereby authorized to
honor the requisitions of the Archivist made in such manner and
in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer may from
time to time prescribe.
This undoubtedly meets the objection raised by the gentleman
from New York, and I contend that the amendment is in order.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page 5044]]
Allocation of Agency's Receipts
Sec. 4.16 Language in a legislative bill providing for the collection
of certain fees and authorizing the use of the fees so collected
for the purchase of certain installations was construed to be an
appropriation and not in order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5).
On June 17, 1937,<SUP>(20)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472, the District of Columbia tax bill. At one point,
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to fix, prescribe,
and collect fees for the parking of automobiles in or upon any
street, avenue, road, highway, or other public space within the
District of Columbia under their jurisdiction and control, and to
make and enforce regulations to provide for the collection of such
fees. Any person violating any such regulation shall be punished by
a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 days.
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are further
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase, rent,
and install such mechanical parking meters or devices as the
Commissioners may deem necessary or advisable to insure the
collection of such fees as may be prescribed for the parking of
vehicles as aforesaid, and to pay the purchase price or rental and
cost of installation of the same from the fees collected, the
remainder of such fees to be paid to the collector of taxes for
deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
revenues of said District. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order
that this section appropriates money out of fees to be collected,
and therefore it is appropriation on a legislative bill. Line 24
provides that the purchase price of these machines shall be paid
from the fees collected and the remainder of the fee shall be paid
into the Treasury.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the point of order comes too late. The section
has been debated and amendments have been offered, and an amendment
to strike out the section has been offered.
Mr. O'Malley: I was attempting to get recognition from the very
beginning.
The Chairman: <SUP>(21)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. The
last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill,
joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
time.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is
properly raised at this time <SUP>(1)</SUP> and that this is purely
an
[[Page 5045]]
appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the
gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be
raised even after debate on the merits has taken place. See
Sec. 12.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 4.17 A provision in a legislative bill authorizing the Director of
the Census to use funds collected for issuance of birth
certificates in administering the provisions of the bill until
expended was held to be an appropriation not in order under Rule
XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 15, 1942,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7239, a bill authorizing the Director of the Census to
issue birth records. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6209, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order against the last sentence of the section just
read that the language creates a revolving fund, constitutes an
appropriation, and is reported in the bill by a committee which is
without authority to report appropriations.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi rose.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> Does the gentleman from
Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin of [Mississippi]: I wish to say that this is not an
appropriation. This money never goes into the Federal Treasury.
Therefore it does not come under the rule on which the gentleman
from South Dakota relies.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I pointed out that this creates a
revolving fund.
The Chairman: Where does this money go if it does not go into
the Treasury?
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: The money is used by the Director of
the Census to pay for the copying of these records.
The Chairman: What happens to the money?
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: It is held in the Bureau of the
Census just exactly as the Tennessee Valley Authority holds the
money that is paid in there, and that is used in a revolving fund
for the construction of dams, transmission lines, and so forth.
The Chairman: The question seems to be whether or not the
language is equivalent to appropriating this money. The language
is:
All amounts collected in payment of such fees may be used
by the Director in administering only the provisions of this
act and shall be available until expended.
There are certain precedents which indicate that that language
is equivalent to the phrase 'is hereby appropriated,' which would
be in violation of the rule. The Chair cites Cannon's Precedents,
volume VII, section 2152, page 896:
Provision for establishment of a special fund, to be
available with other funds appropriated for the purpose in
payment of refunds, was
[[Page 5046]]
ruled to be an appropriation and subject to a point of order
under section 4 of rule XXI.
On January 12, 1933, in the course of the consideration of
the bill (H.R. 13991), the Farm Relief Bill, in the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, this paragraph
was read:
``(b) The proceeds of all taxes collected under this
section, less 2\1/2\ percent for the payment of administrative
expenses under this act, shall be covered into the Treasury
into a special fund to be available, together with any other
funds hereafter appropriated for the purpose, for the payment
of any refunds under this section.''
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, raised the question of
order that the paragraph was in violation of section 4 of rule
XXI prohibiting committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations from reporting appropriations.
The Chairman, Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina,
sustained the point of order.
The Chair believes that the language objected to is in
violation of section 4 of rule XXI, and sustains the point of
order.
Sec. 4.18 Language in a bill reported from a legislative committee
providing that all moneys received by the Maritime Commission under
the act would be deposited in the construction fund of the
commission, and all disbursements made by the commission in
carrying out the act would be paid from such fund, was held to be
an appropriation and not in order.
On Oct. 2, 1945,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3603, a bill concerning the sale of surplus war
vessels. At one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 9288, 9289, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13. (a) The Commission is authorized to reconvert or
restore for normal operation in commercial services, including
removal of national defense or war service features, any vessel
authorized to be sold or chartered under this act. The Commission
is authorized to make such replacements, alterations, or
modifications with respect to any vessel authorized to be sold or
chartered under this act . . . as may be necessary or advisable to
make such vessel suitable for commercial operation on trade routes
or services or comparable as to commercial utility to other such
vessels of the same general type. . . .
(d) All moneys received by the Commission under this act shall
be deposited in the construction fund of the Commission, and all
disbursements made by the Commission in carrying out this act shall
be paid from such fund. The provisions of sections 201(d), 204(b),
207, 209(a), and 905(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended, shall apply to all activities and functions which the
Commission is authorized to perform under this act. . . .
Mr. [Herbert C.] Bonner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
[[Page 5047]]
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. William G. Stigler (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bonner: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
language on page 21, line 6, first sentence, on the ground that it
is an appropriation.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Virginia care to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Reluctantly, upon
advice from the parliamentarian on the point of order that I would
be foolish to argue otherwise, I concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded; the point of
order is sustained.
Use of Proceeds From User Charges
Sec. 4.19 An amendment establishing a user charge and making the
revenues collected therefrom available without further
appropriation is not in order to a bill reported by a committee not
having the jurisdiction to report appropriations.
On Mar. 29, 1972,<SUP>(6)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the bill (H.R. 11896) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 10749-51, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz: On page 350 following line
6:
``Sec. 319(a) It is the purpose of this Section to
supplement the enforcement procedures of this Act by providing
for desirable economic incentives to water users to conserve
water and to minimize pollution through reduction in the
quantity of waste products dumped into these waterways. It is
also the purpose of this Section to encourage the formation of
regional waste treatment management organizations pursuant to
section 208(a) of this Act.
``(b)(1) In furtherance of the purpose of this Section, the
Administrator and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to establish and put into
effect two years after the enactment of this Act a schedule of
national effluent charges for all those discharges including
municipal sewage which detract from the quality of the water
for municipal agricultural, industrial, recreational, sport,
wildlife, and commercial fish uses. These discharges shall
include, but not be limited to, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, thermal discharges, and toxic wastes.
The charges shall be set at a level which will provide for the
attainment of the standards and goals of this Act. Such
regulations shall also provide for making available as public
information all amounts collected pursuant to such charges.
``(2) Any person who willfully fails to pay any charge as
required by regulations established pursuant to this Section or
who willfully fails to make any return, keep any records,
supply any information, or to do any other act required by such
regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or
imprisoned not more than one year or both, together with costs
of prosecution. . . .
[[Page 5048]]
``(c) Revenues collected by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to such charges shall be deposited in a trust fund
(hereinafter referred to as the `fund') in the Treasury to be
available without further appropriation to the Administrator
for use as prescribed in subsection (d).
``(d) Money from the fund shall be available for
distribution by the Administrator in each year for the purpose
of funding Section 106 of this Act (to assist water pollution
control programs of States and interstate agencies) . . . .''
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The Chair will hear the gentleman
from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William N.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, my point of
order is as follows: . . . [T]his amendment is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works. It proposes a tax on
effluents, and raises revenues, and therefore violates rule XI,
which places jurisdiction of revenue raising in the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Section 319(c), Mr. Chairman, categorically refers to revenues
collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to such
charges.
. . . [T]he amendment violates rule XXI, clause 4 prohibiting
appropriations in legislative bills. Section 319(c) and (d) of the
amendment directs the action to be taken with the revenues raised
in accordance with the amendment. In addition to the clear language
of the amendment, the stated purpose of the amendment in the
proponent's March 22, 1972, letter demonstrates the intent that
these funds be used for a specific purpose in violation of rule
XXI, clause 4.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .
Mr. Heinz: Mr. Chairman, I would argue, in response to the
statement of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) in
urging his point of order, that effluent charges are basically user
charges, and user charges are fundamental to the bill. The bill
would not work without them; they are the primary means of
financing the operation and construction of the water treatment
works herein.
And I would add further that this in itself is an important
consideration in ruling on this.
Also I would hasten to add that clearly under sections
204(b)(2) and 204(b)(3) that in fact the purpose of this bill is to
raise revenues for the purposes of the bill, and without this we
could not possibly construct any water treatment facilities.
Finally--and to be brief--there are two historical precedents
that I believe are important that establish the principle that user
charges are germane to the legislation.
Volume IV, section 4119 of Hinds' Precedents of the House of
Representatives--no relation, I would add--state that on February
23, 1905, the River and Harbor Appropriations Bill was under
consideration, and included in such bill was a section permitting
the collection of tolls on freight and passengers. A point of order
was made to that. The point of order was not sustained.
Similarly, at a later date, in Volume VII, section 1929 of the
same precedents, a bill that included a provision calling for fines
and penalties for offenses on lands of the public domain was
reported from the Committee on Public Lands, now called the Depart
[[Page 5049]]
ment of the Interior, and it was determined that those charges
might properly be considered by the Committee of the House as a
Whole.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Chair consider
these precedents in ruling on the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Ohio. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the amendment.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania states that the bill contains
similar provisions. However, the rule under which we are operating
specifically waives all points of order against sections 2, 8, and
12 of the committee amendment, but it does not waive such points of
order against an amendment to the committee amendment.
So far as nongermaneness is concerned, the Chair finds in
clause 3(c) of the amendment submitted a provision for collecting
revenues or taxes. Also in section 3(d) it provides for money
collected from the fund shall be available for distribution--in
other words, an appropriation.
So the Chair finds it is not germane for the reason that it
provides for raising revenue, or a tax, and appropriates money.
Therefore, the amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI and
also it is in violation of clause 4, rule XXI, prohibiting
appropriations on legislative bills.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Points of order had been waived against
appropriations contained in the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, but not against amendments offered from the floor
containing such provision. Hence, the amendment was subject to a point
of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 of Rule XXI in the 1981
House Rules and Manual].
Allocation of Proceeds of Sale
Sec. 4.20 In a bill providing, in part, authority to construct certain
facilities at military reservations, a provision permitting
immediate use of funds derived from the sale of the San Jacinto
Depot for purchase of a site and construction of a depot at Point-
Aux-Pins, Alabama, was ruled out as an appropriation reported from
a legislative committee in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now
clause 5).
On July 9, 1958,<SUP>(8)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13015. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 104 Cong. Rec. 13277, 13284, 13285, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 110. The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed
to enter into a contract or contracts for the sale of the San
Jacinto Ordnance Depot, Texas. . . . The Secretary of the Army is
directed to act as follows:
[[Page 5050]]
(1) The depot shall be moved to, and integrated with, the
ammunition out-loading terminal previously authorized for
construction at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., and, notwithstanding any
other provisions of this or any other act, the authority contained
in the act of July 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 536), for the acquisition of
land and initiation of construction for the Point-Aux-Pins facility
shall continue in effect until specifically superseded, modified,
or repealed.
(2) The sale of the San Jacinto Depot property shall be offered
by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on behalf of and
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army within 18 months
from the date of this act. No part of the land herein shall be
sold, transferred, or occupied, by virtue of this transaction, by
any Government agency or department.
(3) A contract or contracts for the sale of the San Jacinto
Depot shall be consummated as expeditiously as possible thereafter.
. . .
(4) All proceeds from the sale shall be available to administer
the provisions of this section and to pay any and all expenses,
including land acquisition, in connection with the relocation,
exchange, or sale of the San Jacinto Depot or the establishment of
a fully integrated depot at Point-Aux-Pins, Ala., or all proceeds
deposited into the Treasury of the United States for obligation by
the Army. . . .
Mr. [Harry R.] Sheppard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(9)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
paragraph 4 of section 110 which appears on page 18 of the bill.
This paragraph is on appropriation in a bill from a committee not
having jurisdiction to report appropriations, and is in violation
of rule 21, paragraph 4.
Specifically, this provides that funds from the sale of the San
Jacinto Ammunition Depot shall be available to the Secretary of the
Army to pay any and all expenses, including land acquisition, in
connection with the relocation, change, or sale of the San Jacinto
Depot or for the establishment of a fully integrated depot at a
specified location in Alabama.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: I do not desire to be heard on
the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order.
Therefore, paragraph 4, if the Chair sustains the point of order,
will be eliminated.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia concedes the point of
order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Allocating Money Repaid From Loans
Sec. 4.21 A provision in a bill reported by a legislative committee
making available for administrative purposes money repaid from
advances and loans was held to be an appropriation and not in
order.
On Apr. 8, 1936,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 5051]]
ering H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill. At one point the Clerk read
a provision of the bill and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. (b) Any advances or loans which are repaid to the
Secretary by any commission pursuant to section 3 of this act shall
be held in a special fund in the Treasury of the United States and
shall be available until expended for the purpose of administering
this act or until such time as the Secretary shall determine that
all or any part of such funds will not be needed for such purpose,
whereupon all or any part of such funds shall, upon approval by the
Secretary, revert to the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. I desire to make a point of order against that paragraph.
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: We intend to offer an amendment
striking out the appropriation.
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
paragraph. I do not care to argue it. It is conceded by the
chairman of the committee, I think.
Mr. Jones: It is subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(11)</SUP> The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Excess Foreign Currency
Sec. 4.22 Language in a bill authorizing funds for the Foreign
Assistance Act and making excess foreign currencies available to
stimulate private enterprise abroad was conceded to be an
appropriation and in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Aug. 24, 1967,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 12048, the Foreign Assistance Act for 1967. A
provision was read, and a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 23974, 23975, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 35, line 1: . . .
``Sec. 301. Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended, which relates to general provisions, is
amended as follows: . . .
``(d) Section 612, which relates to the use of foreign
currencies, is amended by adding at end thereof the following new
subsection:
`` `(d) Notwithstanding section 1415 of the Supplemental
Appropriation Act, 1953, excess foreign currencies, as defined in
subsection (b) may be made available, in addition to funds
otherwise available, to encourage the establishment, improvement,
or expansion of private enterprises in friendly less developed
countries. . . . The President may make loans or guaranties with
such currencies on such terms and conditions as he may deem
appropriate in the circumstances. To the maximum extent practicable
in making such loans or guaranties, the President shall utilize the
services of private financing institutions, including inter
[[Page 5052]]
mediate credit institutions which finance private business activity
even though there may be a governmental interest in such
institutions. . . .' ''
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the portion of the bill starting on page
35, line 1, to the bottom of page 37, be considered as read and
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? The Chair hears none, and it is
so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the language on page 36, beginning on line 3 and running
through line 23, on the grounds that it makes an appropriation and
is therefore in violation of paragraph 4 of rule XXI. . . .
Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The Chair
sustains the point of order.
Additional Use of Existing Foreign Credits
Sec. 4.23 To a law authorizing, for certain purposes, use of foreign
credits already generated from sale of agricultural products
abroad, a section of a bill reported by the Committee on
Agriculture to authorize use of such funds for an additional
purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 18, 1956,<SUP>(14)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 11708, a bill to amend the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 13393, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. Section 104 (h) of the act is amended by inserting the
following language immediately before the period at the end of the
section: ``and for the providing of assistance to activities and
projects authorized by section 203 of the United States Information
and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C.
1448)''.
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against all of section 2 that it is an appropriation
on a bill by a committee not authorized to deal with
appropriations.
In support of that statement, may I say that this is
exceedingly technical and very difficult to follow. Nonetheless, by
referring to the basic act, Public Law 480, with which this deals,
we find that it refers to foreign currencies and I quote, ``which
accrue to the United States under this act.'' Then refer to the
specific section which states, ``to use the foreign currencies
[[Page 5053]]
which accrue.'' Then go right on down to section (h), to which
this is an amendment. It states, ``for the financing of.'' I submit
this is obviously an appropriation. I might say that if this were
only an authorization I would have no objection to it at all, but I
do not believe this is a proper place to appropriate. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, This currency
unquestionably belonging to the Government of the United States,
which it receives under the provisions of section 2 of Public Law
480, 83d Congress, and being turned over by the terms of section
104 for specific purposes is for other things or for anything that
they desire to purchase.
Paragraph (a) provides for providing new markets for United
States agricultural commodities.
Paragraph (b) to purchase strategic and critical materials. . .
.
Paragraph (e) for promoting balanced economic trade among
nations.
Paragraph (f) to pay United States obligations abroad.
Paragraph (g) for loans to promote multilateral trade.
Mr. Chairman, the adding of one more item for which the funds
can be used constitutes an additional appropriation of these
currencies which belong to the Government of the United States as a
result of the operations under paragraph (a) section 2. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, all
of the money that goes into the financing of these programs have
already been appropriated and turned over to the President to be
used by the President. In the original act, he is given the right
to barter. He is given the right to sell for local currencies. He
is given the right to give away. This only provides that he can
barter just as has been pointed out heretofore in the debate; one
of the rights he now has is to barter. We say he cannot barter with
the U.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, but that he can barter with
all other countries in the world. So it is not an appropriation on
legislation at all. The moneys have already been appropriated and
now are in the hands of the President. Mr. Chairman, without unduly
delaying the matter, may I point out the language. It says:
The President may use or enter into agreements with
friendly nations or organizations of nations and use the
foreign currencies which accrue under this title for one or
more of the following purposes.
And following that is barter, which is one of those purposes.
The Chairman: <SUP>(15)</SUP> The Chair would like the
gentleman from North Carolina to comment on this question. Do we
not acquire foreign currencies which belong to this Government,
which we receive for selling commodities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Prince H. Preston, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooley: Certainly, we are acquiring foreign currencies, and
the act provides for the use of those currencies by the President
of the United States. One of the uses that he can use them for is
(c) to produce military equipment, materials and so forth and
services for the common defense.
The Chairman: The point at issue is whether the funds can be
used without a further appropriation by the Congress.
[[Page 5054]]
Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the question. But the
point is, as I have pointed out, that the funds have already been
appropriated and have already been used largely, and this act
itself authorizes the increase of the authorization, but it does
not authorize the President to use the foreign currencies or
commodities for any purpose foreign to or in addition to the
enumerated uses set forth in the act, one of which is to barter.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] if all the currencies previously
acquired have been used by this Government.
Mr. Cooley: They have been obligated. To the exact extent, I am
not sure, but practically all of them have been obligated but not
actually used. They are covered by gentlemen's agreements, some of
which have not been fully consummated.
I would like to emphasize one point, if I may. The point of
order is to the effect that we are adding to the enumeration of
uses that the President could employ. We are not doing anything of
the kind. Under the act we have a right to barter. That is what
this provision authorizes him to do. We are only saying that he can
barter with this money. The fact of the business is it might be
considered a limitation because we limit the use of the money, in
that he cannot use it in North Korea or China.
Mr. Taber. If the Chair will permit, this is not barter at all.
It is the use of funds. The appropriations having already been
established in section 104, that of course can be continued. But to
add new money and appropriate money for other purposes that were
not allowed in the first bill is beyond the rule, and it
constitutes a new appropriation. Therefore, it is subject to a
point of order because it comes from a committee other than the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, might I add also that
in the committee hearings witnesses testifying on the part of the
executive department used as one of their arguments that this would
give them additional funds.
Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, may I add one comment? The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Taber] points out that we are adding something
to the authority of the President by this amendment in the bill.
Actually, I think some of these funds are now used in connection
with the school lunch program in Japan. They are being used in
other countries in connection with the education of the children of
those countries. Certainly we are not adding to the authority of
the President. It is rather strange that an objection to giving
authority to the President should come from that side of the aisle.
I do not think this is subject to a point of order.
The Chirman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Curtis] has made a point of order against section 2
of the bill, that this constitutes an appropriation. The bill under
consideration by the Committee seeks to amend existing law known as
Public Law 480 of the 83d Congress. In the pending bill it is
clearly evident that a new activity is being created by the
legislation. New authority is being granted in the handling of the
foreign credit derived from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in
the opinion of
[[Page 5055]]
the Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair therefore
feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.44, infra, where language
authorizing use only of future foreign currency proceeds was held not
to be an appropriation.
Amendment to Legislative Bills--Generally
Sec. 4.24 An amendment appropriating money is not in order on a bill
reported by a committee not having jurisdiction over
appropriations.
On May 22, 1936,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 3531, a bill to amend an act relating to Mississippi
River flood control. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 7777, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Arthur P.] Lamneck [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the
following amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 7, after the word ``Engineers'', add the
following: ``Provided, That the Chief of Engineers, under the
supervision of the Secretary of War, shall at the expense of
the United States Government, construct a system of levees and
reservoirs to adequately control the floodwaters of the Scioto,
Olentangy, and Sandusky River Valleys in Ohio: And provided
further, There is hereby appropriated the sum of $40,000,000
for the carrying out of the above project.''
Mr. [Riley J.] Wilson [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it makes a direct
appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> The amendment proposes to
appropriate $40,000,000. Rule XXI provides that no bill or joint
resolution carrying appropriations shall be reported by any
committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations nor
shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
not having that jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inasmuch as the amendment appropriates money in violation of
the rule, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Emergency Fund
Sec. 4.25 An amendment to a legislative bill proposing to make
available not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations for rivers and
harbors work as an emergency fund to be expended for repairing
damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon
was held in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On May 17, 1939,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 5056]]
ering H.R. 6264, a bill dealing with public works on rivers and
harbors. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5679, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Mott: Page 9, after line 6, insert a
new paragraph, as follows:
``The sum of not to exceed $120,000 of appropriations available
for river and harbor work shall be immediately available as an
emergency fund to be expended under the direction of the Secretary
of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for repairing
damage to and checking erosion on the Bayocean Peninsula in Oregon,
caused by storm in January 1939, in order to provide adequate
protection to property on such peninsula and in Tillamook, Oreg.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the amendment that it is an appropriation on a
legislative bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Oregon
desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from
New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I think the
gentleman from New York did not hear the amendment correctly,
because it is not an appropriation but an authorization for the
engineers to use river and harbor money.
Mr. Chairman, there is no language in this amendment which is
appropriating language. The amendment authorizes the use by the
Army engineers of money available for river and harbor work to be
used in emergency work on this project.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York insist on his
point of order?
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall have to insist on the
point of order. If we are to have an appropriation, it should come
in an appropriation bill after a hearing, and then it would go
through quicker, if the need were shown, than this bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman
from Oregon contains language which proposes to divert an
appropriation heretofore made to a new purpose and is therefore in
violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Unemployment Benefits
Sec. 4.26 To a bill amending the Social Security Act to provide a
national program for war mobilization and reconversion, an
amendment directing payments to states on account of unemployment
benefits was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), and not in order.
On Aug. 31, 1944, the Committee of the Whole was considering S.
2051, the war mobilization and reconversion bill of 1944. The following
proceedings took place: <SUP>(20)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 7464, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5057]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the [committee] amendment that it is an
appropriation of funds in violation of clause 4 of rule XXI of the
House. I call the attention of the Chair particularly to this
language. I refer to the page and line of the Senate bill rather
than the amendment, because I have that in front of me and I assume
the Chair can refer to it readily. It begins on page 21, line 6:
(c) Each State shall be entitled to receive from the
Federal unemployment account for each quarter, beginning with
the first quarter commencing after enactment of this act, an
amount equal to the total of all payments of unemployment
compensation made by such State during such quarter, pursuant
to an agreement under this section.
(d) In the event that any State does not agree to make such
payments to such persons, the Civil Service Commission is
hereby authorized and directed to make such payments. . . .
(f) In case of an agreement under this section that a State
agency will make payments as agent of the United States, there
shall be paid in advance to the State such sum as the Board
estimates the State will be entitled to receive for each
quarter under such section. All money paid to a State under
this subsection shall be used solely for the payment of
unemployment compensation. Any money so paid to a State which
is not used for the purpose for which it was paid shall, upon
termination of the agreement, be returned to the Treasury. . .
.
The Chairman: <SUP>(1)</SUP> The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Rhode Island that the rule under which we are
considering this measure, waives points of order against the
committee substitute, but not against the amendments which would be
offered to that substitute. The rule cited by the gentleman from
New York is very clear and specific:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an
appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any
such bills, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be
raised at any time.
In the opinion of the Chair, the language cited by the Chair
and other language cited by the gentleman from New York, clearly
provides for an appropriation.
Mr. [Aime J.] Forand [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, if the
committee amendment, which is an entire new bill, had not been
brought to the floor of the House as it is now, we would be
considering the George [Senate] bill, and that would be in the
George bill. Would not the rule given to us by the Committee on
Rules clear that? We understood this was a broad rule.
The Chairman: Yes; the rule would clear the Senate bill, but we
are not considering the Senate bill; we are considering the
committee substitute amendment to the Senate bill. This is offered
as an amendment to the committee amendment. In the opinion of the
Chair the point of order is well taken.
The Chair sustains the point of order on the authorities cited.
[[Page 5058]]
Guaranteeing Agencies' Use of Previously Appropriated Funds
Sec. 4.27 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency providing that certain guaranteeing
agencies were thereby authorized to use for the purposes of the
section any funds ``heretofore'' appropriated was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and
not in order.
On Aug. 2, 1950,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950. At one
point, a Member raised a point of order against an amendment. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 11599, 11600, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: I make the point of order that the amendment
violates the provisions of section 4 of rule 21. . . .
The Chairman: Will the gentleman from New York point out the
specific language in the bill to which he objects?
Mr. Taber: I call the Chair's attention to page 7, lines 18 to
23:
(d) Each guaranteeing agency is hereby authorized to use
for the purposes of this section any funds which have
heretofore been appropriated or allocated or which hereafter
may be appropriated or allocated to it, or which are or may
become available to it, for such purposes or for the purpose of
meeting the necessities of the national defense. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
. . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the language there
does constitute an appropriation in violation of the rule cited by
the gentleman from New York, and accordingly sustains the point of
order against the amendment on account of that objectionable
language.
Use of Foreign Interest Payments
Sec. 4.28 To a bill authorizing the furnishing of emergency food relief
assistance to India on specified credit terms, an amendment
providing that interest on the principal of any debt incurred
pursuant to such relief program be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury, to be immediately available for certain types of
expenditures by the Department of State was held to be an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
[[Page 5059]]
On May 24, 1951,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3791, a bill to furnish emergency food relief
assistance to India. An amendment was offered and a point of order
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5837, 5838, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William G.] Bray [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bray: On page 3, at line 20, add a
new section reading as follows:
``Sec. 4 (a) any sums payable by the Government of India,
under the interest terms agreed to between the Government of
the United States and the Government of India, on or before
January 1, 1957 . . . as interest on the principal of any debt
incurred under this act shall, when paid, be placed in a
special deposit account in the Treasury of the United States,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to remain
available until expended. This account shall be available to
the Department of State for the following uses:
``(1) Allocation, for designated educational, agricultural,
experimental, scientific, medical, or philanthropic activities,
to American institutions engaged in such activities in India. .
. .''
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, because of my
admiration for the gentleman I dislike to press the point of order,
but I think the rules of the House keep our thinking straight. I
therefore make the point of order. I submit the gentleman's
amendment goes far beyond the scope of the legislation. It
introduces a great deal of new matter and provides for an
appropriation in a legislative act, and is therefore not in order.
. . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk
has reported, providing certain conditions relating to the
assistance proposed to be granted under the pending bill; in
addition it proposes the creation of a fund and makes available
those funds for certain specific purposes.
The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order against the
amendment on two grounds: One, that it is not germane; two, that it
seeks to make an appropriation.
The Chair would call attention to page 88 of Cannon's
Precedents where the following statement is made:
The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same
end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered--
Which is the contention of the gentleman from Indiana--
does not render it germane.
Though the proposed amendment seeks accomplishment of ends
undoubtedly worthy and somewhat related to the aims of the
pending bill, it does provide conditions separate and apart
from the pending bill.
Clause 4 of rule 21 provides:
No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an amendment
be in order during the
[[Page 5060]]
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee not having that jurisdiction.
The proposed amendment would in the opinion of the Chair,
violate this rule.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the
gentleman from Ohio in both respects.
Appropriations to Another Government Agency
Sec. 4.29 To a bill to amend the Agriculture Act of 1949 to permit the
importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment relating
to the detention of Mexican aliens, generally, in the United States
and providing that appropriations made heretofore shall be
available for expenditures to carry out the purposes of the
provision was held to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On June 27, 1951,<SUP>(6)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 3283, a bill to amend the Agricultural
Act of 1949, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 97 Cong. Rec. 7274, 7275, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Add a new section:
``Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to
the contrary and without regard to section 3709 of the revised
statutes, the Attorney General is authorized to purchase,
construct, lease, equip, operate, and maintain on either
Government-leased or Government-owned land such detention
facilities as may be necessary for the apprehension and removal
to Mexico of Mexican aliens illegally in the United States
Appropriations made to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall be available for expenditures to carry out the
purposes of this act.''
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler). . . .
Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> Will the gentleman please state
the grounds of his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooley: First, that it broadens the scope of the
legislation under consideration. It is not germane, and it actually
constitutes an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from New York offers an amendment to the bill
before the committee and the gentleman from North Carolina makes
the point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is
not germane and that it contains an appropriation.
The Chair has had an opportunity to study the amendment offered
by the
[[Page 5061]]
gentleman from New York. As the Chair understands the bill before
the committee, H.R. 3283, it applies to certain Mexican aliens as a
class and as described in the bill. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York broadens the group to include Mexican
aliens illegally in the United States, beyond the class described
in the bill. The amendment also proposes to appropriate funds for a
certain purpose described in the amendment.
For these two reasons, the Chair is constrained to sustain the
point of order.
Funds Previously Appropriated for Mutual Security Agency
Sec. 4.30 To a bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture, an
amendment authorizing the use of funds ``heretofore appropriated
for the use of the Mutual Security Agency'' was ruled out as an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On July 29, 1953,<SUP>(8)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6016, a bill concerned with emergency famine relief.
An amendment was offered and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 99 Cong. Rec. 10392, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: Page 2, lines
10 and 11, strike out the words ``(including the Corporation's
investment in the commodities)'' and insert in lieu thereof
``of funds heretofore appropriated for the use of the Mutual
Security Agency.''
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(9)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Glenn R. Davis (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hope: I make the point of order against the amendment that
it is not germane and that it constitutes an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment as
drafted, would divert previously appropriated funds to a new
purpose. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Foreign Credits for New
Purpose
Sec. 4.31 To a bill providing for extension of a law authorizing, for
certain purposes, use of foreign credits generated from the sale of
surplus agricultural products abroad, an amendment proposing use of
a limited percentage of the generated funds for an additional
purpose, was ruled out as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
[[Page 5062]]
On June 4, 1957,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, among other things. At one
point a Member offered the following amendment, and proceedings ensued
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 2, following line
3, add the following new paragraph No. 4:
``Section 104(e) of such act is amended by striking out the
semicolon at the end thereof and adding a comma and the
following: `for which purposes not more than 25 percent of the
currencies received pursuant to each such agreement shall be
available through and under the procedures established by the
Export-Import Bank for loans mutually agreeable to said bank
and the country with which the agreement is made to United
States business firms and branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates
of such firms for business development and trade expansion in
such countries for the establishment of facilities for aiding
in the utilization, distribution, or otherwise increasing the
consumption of, and markets for, United States agricultural
products. Foreign currencies may be accepted in repayment of
such loans.' ''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(11)</SUP> The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation on a bill
coming from a committee which has no authority to report
appropriations to this body. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: As I understand it,
the President now has the authority in existing law to make these
agreements and to use the money as provided by law. This is in
effect saying he shall not use more than 25 percent of it for these
purposes.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Parliamentarian
has directed the Chair's attention to the fact that on July 18,
1956, in the consideration of a similar measure, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Preston], being Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, ruled on a point of order similar to that made by the
gentleman from New York.
This is the ruling, and the reasons for it in the language of
Chairman Preston, which the Chair adopts:
The gentleman has made a point of order against section 2
of the bill. The bill under consideration by the Committee
seeks to amend existing law known as Public Law 480 of the 83d
Congress. In the pending bill it is clearly evident that a new
activity is being created by the legislation. New authority is
being granted in the handling of the foreign credit derived
from the sale of commodities. Therefore, in the opinion of the
Chair, it constitutes an appropriation. The Chair, therefore,
feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Taber].
Use of Tax Receipts for School Construction
Sec. 4.32 An amendment (to a bill reported from the Committee
[[Page 5063]]
on Education and Labor) providing that the District Director of
Internal Revenue shall, under a formula, pay an allotment to each
state out of tax funds for school construction has been ruled out
as an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently
clause 5).
On July 25, 1957,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 1, a bill to authorize federal assistance to the
states and local communities in financing an expanded program of school
construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of classrooms.
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 12728, 12729, 12733, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edwin H.] May [Jr., of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. May: Page 31, beginning with line
19, strike out everything down through line 11, page 46, and
insert the following:
``Title I--Payments to State Educational Agencies
``Authorization of appropriations
``Sec. 101. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1957, and the four
succeeding fiscal years, such amounts, not to exceed $300
million in any fiscal year, as may be necessary for making
payments to State educational agencies as provided in section
104.
``Allotments to States
``Sec. 102(a)(1) The sums appropriated for any fiscal year
pursuant to section 101 shall be allotted among the States on
the basis of the income per child of school age, the school-age
population, and effort for school purposes, of the respective
States. Subject to the provisions of section 103, such
allotments shall be made as follows: The Commissioner shall
allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the
sums appropriated pursuant to section 101 for such year as the
product of--
``(A) the school-age population of the State, and
``(B) the state's allotment ratio (as determined under
paragraph (2)), bears to the sum of the corresponding products
for all the States.
``Payments to States
``Sec. 104. When he has computed a State's allotment for a
year, the Commissioner shall certify the amount thereof to the
District Director of Internal Revenue for the Internal Revenue
District of which the State is a part (or, if the State lies in
more than one such District, to the District Director
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury). From the
collections made from such State from taxes levied under part I
of subchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to income tax on individuals),
the District Director of Internal Revenue shall retain an
amount equal to the State's allotment. He shall then pay the
State's allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments,
to the State educational agency. . . .''
[[Page 5064]]
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that section 104 of the
amendment constitutes an appropriation and it is on a bill coming
from a committee not authorized to report appropriations.
That motion is in order at any time before the bill is enacted.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on the point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> The gentleman is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: In my opinion, the point of order comes too late.
The amendment has been offered and reported and debate has begun on
the amendment.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it is specifically specified in the
rules that that point of order is available at any time during the
progress of the bill.
Mr. [H. R.) Gross [of Iowa]: Under rule XXI
Mr. Taber: Under rule XXI.
The Chairman: As to the question of timeliness of the point of
order, there is no question but that it can be made at this time.
The Chair feels that this language ``shall pay the State's
allotment for the year, in equal monthly installments, to the State
educational agency'' makes the amendment subject to the point of
order.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Corps of Engineers--Use of Prior Appropriations
Sec. 4.33 Where a committee amendment to a rivers and harbors
authorization bill contained language which permitted the Chief of
Engineers to use, for certain purposes, appropriations heretofore
or hereinafter made for civil works, the amendment was conceded to
contain an appropriation and was ruled out as in violation of Rule
XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On Oct. 3, 1962,<SUP>(14)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13273, the rivers and harbors authorization bill for
1962. At one point the Clerk read a committee amendment as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 21883, 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: Page 13, line 15, insert:
``Sec. 102. (a) The Act approved August 13, 1946, as
amended by the Act approved July 28, 1956 (33 U.S.C. 426e-h),
pertaining to shore protection, is hereby further amended as
follows: . . .
``(4) Sections 2 and 3 are amended to read as follows:
`` `Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized
to reimburse local interests for work done by them . . .
Provided, That the work which may have been done on the
projects is approved by the Chief of Engineers as being in
accordance with the authorized projects: Provided further, That
such reimburse
[[Page 5065]]
ment shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or
funds available therefor and shall not take precedence over
other pending projects of higher priority for improvements.
`` `Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to
undertake construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he
finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
to allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereinafter made
for civil works, not to exceed $3,000,000 for any one fiscal
year for the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
projects. . . .' ''
Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order against the amendment in that it appears clearly in
the amendment that it is an appropriation on an authorization bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(15)</SUP> Does the gentleman from Minnesota
desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
committee concedes the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
The Chair will state, this applies to the entire amendment from
page 13, line 15, down to and including line 19 on page 16.
Mr. Blatnik: Mr. Chairman, am I correct, then, that this
applies to the entire section 102, it deletes that section?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Language Held To Be ``Authorization''
Sec. 4.34 Language in a bill authorizing an appropriation of not less
than a certain amount for a specified purpose has been held not to
be an appropriation.
On May 11, 1934,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering a bill <SUP>(17)</SUP> which stated in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 8640, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H.R. 8781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpose of increasing
employment by providing for emergency construction of public
highways and other related projects there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the sum of not less than $400,000,000 for allocation
under the provisions of section 204 of the National Industrial
Recovery Act.
A point of order was raised against the provision, as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The language of this section
provides that there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of not
less than $400,000,000. That is, in effect, a mandatory piece of
legislation, and must result in an appropriation. This bill does
not come from the Committee on Appropriations and therefore this
sec
[[Page 5066]]
tion, with that language in it, is out of order. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(18)</SUP> . . . This is simply an
authorization, and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David D. Glover (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reappropriation
Sec. 4.35 Language of an amendment providing that an appropriation when
made should come out of any unexpended balances heretofore
appropriated or made available for emergency purposes was held to
be in order on a legislative bill since such language did not
constitute an appropriation.
On Jan. 9, 1936,<SUP>(1)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9870, a bill dealing with payment of adjusted service
certificates. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong Rec. 274, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. . . .
Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment by Mr. Treadway: Page 7, line 13, after the word
``appropriated'', insert ``out of any unexpended balances
heretofore appropriated or made available for emergency
purposes.''
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order against the amendment that it is not
definite enough. It does not specify what law or what appropriation
is intended to be covered by the proposed amendment.
Mr. Treadway: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the
point of order.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the further point of order that it is an appropriation. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(2)</SUP> The Chair does not think it
necessary to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts unless the
gentleman seeks to convince the Chair that the Chair would be in
error in holding his amendment in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas L. Blanton (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is restrictive and limits Congress to just one source
in making its appropriation, while the bill in no way limits, the
amendment is merely an authorization. It will require action on the
part of Congress later to appropriate the money, and the Chair,
therefore, overrules the point of order.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reappropriations are no longer permitted. See Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Made Available to Other Agencies
Sec. 4.36 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing that all
[[Page 5067]]
funds available for carrying out the act would be available for
allotment to other bureaus and offices for a similar purpose was
held not to be an appropriation, inasmuch as the bill permitted no
use of existing funds but merely authorized new funds, when
appropriated, to be so allocated.
On Apr. 8, 1936,<SUP>(4)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12037, the tobacco compact bill, the
Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was made as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5207, 5208, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 8. All funds available for carrying out this act shall be
available for allotment to the bureaus and offices of the
Department of Agriculture and for transfer to such other agencies
of the Federal or State governments as the Secretary may request to
cooperate or assist in carrying out this act.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
make a point of order against section 8 for the same reason as
applied to section 7. The section makes available and transfers
funds in the Treasury for a different purpose than that for which
they have been appropriated, and I think under the precedents and
decision of the Speaker and of the Chair it is subject to the same
point of order as was raised to section 7. . . .
I call the Chair's attention to the fact that the fees paid by
the handlers of tobacco for so-called marketing agreements under
section 3 go into the Treasury of the United States and are a part
of the funds referred to in this section. They would remain in the
Treasury and not be available to the Secretary of Agriculture or to
anyone except for the language in section 8. . . .
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I submit the
suggestion that by the provisions of the amendment to the previous
section any advance or loans repaid to the Secretary by any
commission, and so forth, shall revert to the Treasury of the
United States; so the point of order made by the gentleman is not
applicable. Section 7(a) is where provision is made with reference
to the funds mentioned in section 3. All that is involved in
section 8 is the amount appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture for administrative purposes, and this is merely a
matter of allowing him to permit some other bureau assisting him to
use the same fund. It is not a new appropriation, it is the same
appropriation and it is for the same function, that of
administration. It does not involve a new appropriation if a man's
assistant spends the man's money helping do the job. In fact, this
involves no appropriation at all. It only refers to the use of
funds authorized to be appropriated in a previous section--if and
when such appropriation is made.
If the gentleman from Michigan will look at the previous
section, he will find the funds mentioned in section 3, and the
collections thereof revert to the Treasury automatically, under the
amendment which we just adopted and which takes the place of the
provision which was stricken out. . . .
[[Page 5068]]
Mr. Mapes: Will not the gentleman from Texas admit that section
8 might divert some of the funds which may be appropriated under
the committee's substitute for section 7, which would not be so
diverted except for section 8?
Mr. Jones: That would be true for any part of the funds that
are appropriated there for administrative purposes but not for
advances and loans, because subdivision (b) of section 7
specifically eliminates all loans and advances and puts them back
into the Treasury when they are repaid. So, by virtue of the
limitation in section (b) this can apply only to administrative
funds.
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> . . . As the Chair understands,
this bill does not carry any appropriation--that part of the bill
was stricken out on a point of order--and therefore there are no
funds available so far as the bill stands at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John R. Mitchell (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Farm Loans
Sec. 4.37 An amendment authorizing the making of farm loans was held
not to be an appropriation under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5).
On Jan. 25, 1937,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 1545. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 394-98, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. (a) No loan shall be made under this act to any
applicant who shall not have first established to the satisfaction
of the proper officer or employee of the Farm Credit
Administration, under such regulations as the Governor may
prescribe, that such applicant is unable to procure from other
sources a loan in an amount reasonably adequate to meet his needs
for the purposes for which loans may be made under this act; and
preference shall be given to the applications of farmers whose cash
requirements are small. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. Massingale: Amend paragraph C of
section 2, page 3, by striking out the period after the word
``prescribe'', on line 5 of said paragraph, inserting a comma, and
adding the following: ``and loans for seed oats shall be
immediately available in localities where it is customary that
sowing or planting shall be done in the late winter or early spring
months.'' . . .<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Note: Loans are not considered charges against the Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have
to disagree with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Massingale].
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's
amendment would amount to inserting an appropriation in a
legislative bill. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(8)</SUP> The Chair overrules the
gentleman's point of order insofar as the point of order is based
on the ground that the amendment involves an appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advances From Treasury
Sec. 4.38 Language authorizing and directing an executive
[[Page 5069]]
officer to advance, when appropriated, sums of money out of the
Treasury was held not to constitute an appropriation on a
legislative bill.
On June 17, 1937,<SUP>(9)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472. At one point an amendment was offered and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5914, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 1, after line 4,
insert the following:
``Title I--Authorization for Advance of Funds
``Until and including June 30, 1938, the Secretary of the
Treasury, notwithstanding the provisions of the District of
Columbia Appropriation Act approved June 29, 1922, is
authorized and directed, when appropriated, to advance, on the
requisition of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia,
made in the manner now prescribed by law, out of any money in
the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated,
such sums as may be necessary from time to time during said
fiscal year to meet the general expenses of said District, as
provided by law, and such amounts so advanced shall be
reimbursed by the said Commissioners to the Treasury out of the
taxes and revenue collected for the support of the government
of the said District of Columbia.''
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
. . . I make the same point of order against the amendment as
was raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and upon
which the Chair just ruled. The language of the District of
Columbia Appropriation Act makes this amendment an exception to the
appropriation act. The amendment states ``out of any money in the
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.'' It
seems to me the amendment seeks to have Congress authorize and
appropriate a certain amount of money which the Congress would have
to reimburse the Treasury for if the District itself was not able
to reimburse the Treasury out of the revenues to be obtained under
this bill.
The Chairman: <SUP>(10)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. It is
the opinion of the Chair that the language included in the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols],
which indicates that the money cannot become available until and
when appropriated, is proper, and therefore overrules the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The language objected to by Mr. John Taber,
and subsequently referred to by Mr. O'Malley in his point of order, was
substantially the same as that in the Nichols amendment, but did not
include the phrase ``when appropriated.'' <SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 5910, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Accounts for Specified Purposes
Sec. 4.39 Language directing that the proceeds of taxes shall be
[[Page 5070]]
deposited in a special account in the Treasury entirely to the
credit of the District of Columbia and would thereafter be
appropriated and used solely and exclusively for certain enumerated
purposes was held merely a direction to appropriate in the future
and not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5),
as being an appropriation on a legislative bill.
On June 17, 1937,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5924, 5925, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``All proceeds of the taxes imposed under this act . . . shall
be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United
States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia, and
shall be appropriated and used solely and exclusively for the
following purposes:
``(1) For the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and
maintenance of public highways, including the necessary
administrative expenses in connection therewith . . .''
Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against that part of section 2 on page 12, line 2,
beginning with the words ``and shall'', through and including line
24 on page 12, on the ground that it is an appropriation and
violates the rule which requires that appropriations shall come
from the Committee on Appropriations.
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> Will the gentleman advise the
Chair of the language to which he makes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Engel: On page 12, line 2, commencing with the words ``and
shall be appropriated'', continuing through the remainder of the
section.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do
not believe the point of order will lie. This section first does
not appropriate any money. It is only an affirmative direction for
the expenditure of money or an indication of how the money shall be
expended, but it does not undertake, either by language or
implication, to appropriate money.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will state
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] has stated the
matter correctly. The point of order is overruled.
``Appropriation'' Defined as ``Payment of Funds From the Treasury''
Sec. 4.40 A bill to regulate barbers in the District of Columbia
containing language providing that fees and charges payable under
the act would be paid to the secretary-
[[Page 5071]]
treasurer of a board to carry out these regulations and providing
compensation of members of the board from such funds was held not
to be an appropriation of funds from the Treasury where it was
stated that expenses under the bill were not chargeable against the
United States or the District of Columbia.
On Jan. 24, 1938,<SUP>(14)</SUP> the House was considering H.R.
7085. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was
raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 1008, 1009, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11. All fees and charges payable under the provisions of
this act shall be paid to the secretary-treasurer of the Board. The
Board is hereby authorized to refund any license fee or tax, or
portion thereof, erroneously paid or collected under this act.
(a) For the examination of an applicant for a certificate as a
registered barber, $5. . . .
Sec. 12. The Commissioners are authorized and directed to
provide suitable quarters for examinations and equipment to the
Board and for the compensation of the members of the Board at the
rate of $9 per day . . . Provided, That payments under this section
shall not exceed the amount received from the fees provided for in
this act; and if at the close of each fiscal year any funds
unexpended in excess of the sum of $1,000 shall be paid into the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District of
Columbia: Provided, That no expense incurred under this act shall
be a charge against the funds of the United States or the District
of Columbia. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that sections 11 and 12 provide for an appropriation
which the Committee on the District of Columbia, as a legislative
committee, is not authorized to do. Section 11 sets up a schedule
of fees and section 12 appropriates such fees to the use of the
Commissioners, stating that any sums unexpended in excess of a
thousand dollars shall revert to the Treasury. . . .
The Speaker: <SUP>(15)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule on the
point of order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order against
section 12 of the bill that under the terms of the section there is
an appropriation of funds out of the Public Treasury.
If, in the opinion of the Chair, the language of the section
sustained that position, clearly the point of order of the
gentleman from Wisconsin would be good. However, the Chair calls
attention to the fact it is stated in a precedent which will be
found in the Congressional Record, Sixty-seventh Congress, first
session, page 3388:
The term ``appropriation'' in the rule means the payment of
funds from the Treasury.
As far as the Chair is able to read the language of section 12,
it provides
[[Page 5072]]
only the payment of funds into the Treasury under certain
contingencies, and does not provide for the payment of funds out of
the Treasury.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order
made by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Unused Appropriations Paid Into Treasury Account
Sec. 4.41 A provision in a legislative bill providing that sums already
appropriated and not used for making parity payments would be
covered into the Treasury to offset the subsequent appropriations
made pursuant to the authority of the bill under consideration was
held not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5),
inasmuch as further action would be required to appropriate such
sums authorized.
On Jan. 29, 1942,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6350, a bill dealing with relief for certain
agricultural producers. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 851, 852, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to make a point of order against paragraph (b), on the ground that
it violates clause 4 of rule XXI.
Paragraph (b) reads as follows:
The Congress further determines that substantial amounts of
the sums which have heretofore been appropriated for making
parity payments will not be needed for making such payments;
and it hereby directs that so much of the money appropriated in
the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1942, for the
purpose of making parity payments as is not used for such
purpose shall be covered into the Treasury to offset the
appropriations made pursuant to the authority of this act. . .
.
My contention is that paragraph (b) diverts an appropriation
already made to a different purpose, therefore is a violation of
the rule. If there should be any doubt in the mind of the Chair, I
should like to be heard further on the point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(17)</SUP> Does the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Fulmer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to comment
on the point of order except to state I do not believe that the
point of order is germane; therefore, it should not be sustained. .
. .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has examined this paragraph very carefully. The Chair
calls attention to the fact that the paragraph provides that the
sum of money, whatever sum it may be, appropriated for the purpose
of making parity payments and not used for such purpose shall be
covered into the Treasury to offset the appropriations made
pursuant to the authority of this act.
[[Page 5073]]
The paragraph contemplates that there will be further action by
the Congress before any appropriation is made available. Therefore,
the Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Is the holding of the Chair in the
language the Chair just used to the effect that further action is
necessary, that under the legislative history of this bill it would
not be possible for the proponents of this legislation to come
before the Committee on Appropriations and maintain that the hands
of the Committee on Appropriations had already been tied by the
action on this bill?
The Chairman: Before there could be any activity under the
provisions of this bill, there must be appropriate action by the
Congress making money available for the purposes therein set forth.
Membership in International Organization
Sec. 4.42 Language in a bill reported by a legislative committee
providing ``that the President is hereby authorized to accept
membership for the United States in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the Constitution of which
was approved in London on November 16, 1945, by the United Nations
Conference for the establishment of an Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, and deposited in the Archives of the
Government of the United Kingdom'' was held not to involve an
appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently
clause 5) merely because the constitution of the organization
provided that ``the general conference shall approve and give final
effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the organization . . .
.'' since a subsequent appropriation was authorized by the bill.
On May 21, 1946,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 305, relating to United States
participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization. The following proceedings took place as the
joint resolution was considered for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 5388-95, 79th Cong. 2d Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, etc., That the President is hereby authorized to
accept membership for the United States in the United Nations
Educational, Scientific,
[[Page 5074]]
and Cultural Organization (hereinafter referred to as the
``Organization''), the constitution of which was approved in London
on November 16, 1945. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against section 1 of the bill, beginning in line 3 on page 1,
and ending in line 2 on page 2. . . .
I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that it
is an appropriation coming from a committee not authorized to
report appropriations to the House. That kind of a point of order
can be made at any time during the consideration of the bill.
I call the attention of the Chair to article IX of the
constitution of this Organization which appears in the report of
the committee on page 9.
It says:
The General Conference shall approve and give final effect
to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the Organization
subject to such arrangement with the United Nations as may be
provided in the agreement to be entered into pursuant to
article X.
Let me call attention to the fact that this authorizes the
validation of that article. . . .
The Chairman: <SUP>(19)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against section
1 of the resolution on the ground that it appropriates money and
comes from a committee not authorized to make appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Colmer (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No appropriation is made in section 1 of the bill.
Section 4 of the joint resolution would authorize an
appropriation at a later date to be appropriated by the appropriate
committee.<SUP>(20)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sec. 4 stated in part:
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually to
the Department of State, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the
payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of
the Organization as apportioned by the General Conference of
the Organization in accordance with article IX of the
constitution of the Organization, and such additional sums as
may be necessary to pay the expenses of participation by the
United States in the activities of the Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. [Frank A.] Mathews [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mathews: The point of order is as follows: As I understand,
upon the adoption of this resolution the United States of America
authorizes the President to make it, the United States, a member of
this Organization whose constitution is set forth in the report of
the committee.
Under article IX of that constitution headed ``Budget'' the
following appears:
Sec. 1. The budget shall be administered by the
Organization.
2. The General Conference shall approve and give final
effect to the budget and to the apportionment of financial
responsibility among the states members of the Organization--
[[Page 5075]]
And so forth. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that in effect
practically delegates the power of appropriation of this body to an
organization or a part of an organization which is not composed of
Members of this body and not acting officially. I contend further,
therefore, that we have no right constitutionally to so delegate
liability for those appropriations or expenditures. . . .
Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: May I suggest to the
gentleman from New Jersey that the Chair has already ruled on
practically an identical point of order.
Mr. Mathews: That was not the same point.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair, in
construing a point of order raised by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Taber) on a similar proposition, ruled that it was not an
appropriation and, therefore, the point of order did not lie. The
Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from New Jersey to the
fact that section 4, page 5, is the authorization section of the
joint resolution, and that money could not be appropriated until it
was authorized by that section.
The point of order is overruled.
Loans From Public Debt Proceeds
Sec. 4.43 A discussion of the nature of an ``appropriation'' took place
in the House when language in a housing bill authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to use proceeds of public-debt issues for
the purpose of making loans was held not to be an appropriation and
not in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5).
On June 27, 1949,<SUP>(21)</SUP> the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole to consider the Housing Act of
1949.<SUP>(22)</SUP> During the committee's consideration, the
following language was read: <SUP>(1)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 8451, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
22. H.R. 4009.
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 8480, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) To obtain funds for loans under this title, the
Administrator, on and after July 1, 1949, may, with the approval of
the President, issue and have outstanding at any one time notes and
obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury in an
amount not to exceed $25,000,000. . . .
(f) Notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator
under this title shall be in such forms and denominations, have
such maturities, and be subject to such terms and conditions as may
be prescribed by the Administrator, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury. Such notes or other obligations shall
bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the
last day of the month preceding the issuance of such notes or other
obligations. The Sec
[[Page 5076]]
retary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any
notes and other obligations of the Administrator issued under this
title and for such purpose is authorized to use as a public debt
transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued
under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under such act, as amended, are
extended to include any purchases of such notes and other
obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any
of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this
section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of
the Treasury of such notes or other obligations shall be treated as
public debt transactions of the United States.
On the next day, Members discussed the effect of such language:
<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at pp. 8536-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the
point of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section
102 in title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the
Federal Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is
without jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under
clause 4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution
carrying appropriations shall be reported by any committee not
having jurisdiction to report appropriations.
This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in
consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this
proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting
funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree.
The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the
Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must
follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury
is an appropriation.
I invite the attention of the Chairman to the fact that
subparagraph (e) states:
To obtain funds for loans under this title, the
Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any one time
notes and obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the
Treasury in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, which limit on
such outstanding amount shall be increased by $225,000,000 on
July 1, 1950, and by further amounts of $250,000,000 on July 1
in each of the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively--
Within the total authorization of $1,000,000,000.
Further that subparagraph (f) provides that--
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed--
And I call particular attention to the use of the words ``and
directed''--to purchase any notes and other obligations of the
Administrator issued under this title and for such purpose is
authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from
the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond
Act, as amended--
And so forth. The way in which this particular language extends
this device of giving the Secretary authority to subscribe for
notes by some authority
[[Page 5077]]
is this: It includes the words ``and directed.''
In other words, the Secretary of the Treasury has no
alternative when the Administrator presents to him some of these
securities for purchase but to purchase them. The Secretary of the
Treasury is not limited to purchasing them by proceeds from the
sale of bonds or securities. He is directed to purchase these notes
and obligations issued by the Administrator. That means he might
use funds obtained from taxes, that he might use funds obtained
through the assignment of miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury,
that he might use funds obtained through the proceeds of bonds. . .
.
Mr. Chairman, this is not, as I said earlier, a casual point of
order; we are here dealing with the fundamental power of the
Congress to control appropriations. No such device has ever before,
so far as I can find out, been presented to the Congress for
getting money in the guise of a legislative bill without its having
been considered by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a
mandatory extraction of funds from the Public Treasury, and,
consequently, constitutes an appropriation and is beyond the
authority or the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and
Currency to report in this bill. . . .
Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the raising of
funds by public debt transaction has been frequently authorized by
the Congress: The Export-Import Bank raises funds by that method;
the Bretton Woods Agreement, in my recollection, is carried out by
that method; the British loan was financed by that method, and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was also financed by that
method. It does not seem to me that this is a seasonable objection.
This has been the policy of the Congress for years.
Mr. Chairman, this is not raising money to be appropriated for
the purposes that ordinary appropriation bills carry. All of this
money is to be used as loans.
The gentleman says that in other acts the Secretary of the
Treasury is ``authorized'' but not ``directed''. I contend that the
meaning of ``authorized'' and ``directed'' in this act is
absolutely the same.
Do you think when you authorize the Secretary of the Treasury
to raise funds to carry out a great public purpose it is in his
discretion whether he shall raise those funds and that that shall
depend on the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury? I say
``authorized'' in this sense means ``directed.'' It could not mean
anything else, otherwise you would be delegating to an officer of
the Government entire discretion as to whether or not great
national acts should be carried out and the purposes of Congress
should be subserved.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, in most of the acts
which the gentleman has suggested, points of order were waived, and
I refer to Bretton Woods and some of the other bills. But as to the
particular point here in issue, the question whether the words
``and directed'' have any meaning, if they do not have any meaning
why are they there? The present housing act merely authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to purchase. It does not say ``and
directed.'' The very inclu
[[Page 5078]]
sion of the words ``and directed'' is evidence of the fact they
have a special meaning They create a mandatory extraction of funds
from the Public Treasury.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I still contend unless you would make
our acts a nullity ``authorized'' and ``directed'' have exactly the
same meaning when applied to a public official charged with
carrying out a great national act. I do not think there can be any
reasonable construction that would hold otherwise. . . .
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
agree with my friend who has raised the point of order that this is
not a casual one, but, on the contrary, is a very sincere one. It
presents a new question from a legislative angle to be passed upon
in the direct question raised by the point of order.
The gentleman from South Dakota has referred to the
Constitution. The Constitution says:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of appropriations made by law.
The word ``appropriations'' is used.
The rule referred to, clause 4, rule 21, says:
No bill or resolution carrying appropriations shall be
reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
appropriations.
You will note the word ``appropriations'' is used. Now, let us
see what ``appropriations'' means.
I have before me Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary and
``appropriations'' is defined as follows: To set apart for a
particular use. To take for one's own use.
The provisions of this bill are not taking for one's own
use, because this is a loan designed purely for loan purposes.
It is not a definite appropriation. It is giving authority to
utilize for loan purposes and the money comes back into the
Treasury of the United States with interest.
Again, the word ``appropriations'' is defined:
Something, as money, appropriated--
I call particular attention to those words ``something, as
money, appropriated''--
or set apart, as by a legislature, for a special use.
I repeat ``something, as money.''
The provision in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a
point of order against relates entirely to loans. As we read
section 102 of title I it starts out with loans. Throughout the
bill, a number of times, there is reference to loans.
Paragraph (e) says:
To obtain funds for loans under this title.
It is a loan.
The meat of the two paragraphs, as I see it, is this:
Paragraph (f), line 23, page 8, says:
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to
purchase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator
issued under this title and for such purpose is authorized to
use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of
any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as
amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued
under such act, as amended, are extended to include any
purchases of such notes and other obligations.
[[Page 5079]]
It seems to me that that is the meat. Certainly, the language
there does not amount to an appropriation. It is entirely for loan
purposes. . . .
Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: The gentleman has
discussed the point--the difference between the word ``authorized''
and ``directed.'' Does not the gentleman realize that he is
``authorized'' to appear on the floor and ``authorized'' to make
statements? The gentleman is not ``directed'' to. Now, following
further, the Committee on Appropriations of this House is
``authorized'' to do certain things, but the gentleman must realize
that the Committee on Appropriations is not ``directed'' to do
certain things. There is a real difference, a constitutional
difference between the words ``authorized'' and ``directed.'' The
gentleman is ``authorized'' to walk down the street and
``authorized'' to do many things. But the gentleman would fight for
his right not to be ``directed'' to do what he is ``authorized'' to
do. The gentleman's argument is farfetched. This is a serious
situation.
Mr. McCormack: There is nothing the gentleman has said that I
can disagree with except that everything the gentleman has said has
no application to the matter pending now. The basic question here
is whether or not this is an appropriation within the meaning of
the rules or money that is going to be utilized for loan purposes
and recovered back into the General Treasury. So the gentleman's
observations, as I see it, respecting the gentleman as I do, have
no application at all to the basic and pertinent question presented
to the Chair by the point of order raised by the gentleman from
South Dakota. . . .
Mr. [John] Phillips of California: The question has to do with
the meaning of ``authorized and directed.'' Within the past 6 weeks
I have had a bill before one of the major committees of this House.
The county counsel of my home county raised the question of whether
the wording should be ``authorized`` or ``authorized and directed''
in four different places in the bill. It was taken up with the
attorneys for the Interior Department. The attorneys recognized the
distinction between ``authorized'' and ``authorized and directed,''
and agreed upon the inclusion in certain instances and not in
others. There is a recognized distinction, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the
point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a
matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain,
this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this
issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns
on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in
its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of
the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of
the general functions of Government. The language before us does
not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
to use proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making
loans. Under the language, the Treasury of the United
[[Page 5080]]
States makes advances which will be repaid in full with interest
over a period of years without cost to the taxpayers.
Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not
constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order. . .
.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that
language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the
proceeds of the securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act
and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous
receipts or tax revenues?
The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that
distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has
been raised. . . . The Chair can make a distinction between the
general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific
purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved
here.
Future Foreign Currency Proceeds From Exports
Sec. 4.44 To a bill reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, an
amendment earmarking a specified amount of the funds authorized by
the bill to be used specifically for the purchase and export of
surplus agricultural commodities and providing that future foreign
currency proceeds therefrom would be used for the purposes of the
act was held not to be an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5).
On June 29, 1954,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954. An
amendment was offered and a point of order raised as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 100 Cong. Rec. 9238, 9239, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Judd:
Page 29, line 15, strike out all on lines 15 through 23 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
``Sec. 402. Earmarking of funds: Of the funds authorized to
be made available pursuant to this act, not less than $500
million shall be used to finance the purchase and export of
surplus agricultural commodities or products thereof produced
in the United States and foreign currency proceeds therefrom
shall be used for the purposes of this act pursuant to section
104 of the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954.''
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Clarence J. Brown (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the . . . point of order that
it involves an appropriation of funds, and I call attention to the
fact that the language says that these funds that are realized from
the sale of these products can be used for a particular purpose.
That makes an appropriation out of it.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be
heard?
Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page 5081]]
This is not an appropriation. The total bill authorizes the
appropriation of about $3.4 billion. This section is a limitation
or earmarking of funds that may be appropriated under the
authorization. It says that of the $3.4 billion, if and when it is
appropriated, not less than $500 million shall be used for a given
purpose. This is language that is almost word for word the same as
section 550 of the act last year, except the act last year said not
less than $100 million and not to exceed $250 million should be
used for this purpose of purchasing surplus agricultural
commodities to be used as aid instead of dollars. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
On a careful reading of the amendment as modified--and I wish
to read the wording of it--``of the funds authorized to be made
available pursuant to this act not less than,'' and so forth--it is
the ruling of the Chair that this amendment should be interpreted
to mean that unless the appropriation is first authorized, the
amendment has no effect whatsoever and therefore the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 4.23, supra, where language
authorizing new use of existing foreign currency proceeds already
available for a different purpose under existing law was ruled out as
an appropriation.
Reconstituted Area Redevelopment Fund
Sec. 4.45 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency repealing the public-debt financing
provisions of the Area Redevelopment (revolving) Fund, and, in lieu
thereof, authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted Area
Redevelopment Fund, was held not to be an appropriation within the
purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) where another
section of the bill authorized subsequent appropriations for the
fund.
On June 12, 1963,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4996, a bill amending the Area Redevelopment Act. At
one point the Clerk read as follows, and a point of order was raised as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 10721, 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6. (a) Subsection (a) of section 9 of the Area
Redevelopment Act is repealed.
(b) Subsection (b) of section 9 of such Act is redesignated as
subsection (a), and the first sentence of such subsection as so
redesignated is amended to read as follows: ``There shall be in the
Treasury of the United States an area redevelopment fund
(hereinafter referred to as the `fund') which shall be available to
the Secretary for the purpose of extending financial assistance
under sections 6 and 7 and for repayment of all obligations and
expenditures arising therefrom.''. . .
[[Page 5082]]
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman from Iowa will state
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 5, line 18, beginning with the words ``and the
first sentence of such subsection as so redesignated is amended to
read as follows:''. . .
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this constitutes,
in fact, an appropriation in a legislative bill
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this just merely
restates existing law. It just creates a fund which already exists,
really, and the fund will be supplemented by the amount
appropriated through regular channels. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
whether or not additional appropriations are required for this
fund?
Mr. Patman: Yes, sir; they are required.
The Chairman: They are required?
Mr. Patman: Yes; section 10 says:
Funds appropriated for the purpose of extending financial
assistance under sections 6 and 7 shall be deposited in the
Area Redevelopment Fund in the Treasury of the United States.
The Chairman: Additional legislation would be necessary to
appropriate funds. The Chair holds this is an authorization and
overrules the point of order.
Use of Loan Repayments
Sec. 4.46 Language in an amendment to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking and Currency repealing the public debt financing
provisions of the Area Redevelopment Act fund, in lieu thereof
authorizing appropriations for a reconstituted fund, and applying
receipts from the repayments of loans to the credit of available
appropriations was held not to be an appropriation within the
purview of Rule XXI clause 4 (subsequently clause 5) upon
assurances that such receipts could not be reused without a
subsequent appropriation.
On June 12, 1963,<SUP>(8)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Area Redevelopment Act amendments (H.R.
4996) a point of order was raised against the following language, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 10722, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7. Section 11 of the Area Redevelopment Act is amended--
(1) by striking out ``$4,500,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$10,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ``The
Secretary, in
[[Page 5083]]
his discretion, may require repayment of the assistance provided
under this section and prescribe the terms and conditions of such
repayment. Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the
appropriation available for assistance under this section which is
current at the time of repayment.''. . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(9)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language found on page 6 of the bill, line 23, which reads as
follows:
Receipts from such repayments shall be credited to the
appropriation available for assistance under this section which
is current at the time of repayment.
I again make the point of order that this constitutes in fact
an appropriation in a legislative act.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this concerns
repayment and disposal of it after it has been repaid from which it
was originally appropriated. I do not believe the gentleman's point
of order is well taken.
The Chairman: May the Chair inquire whether these funds can be
reused?
Mr. Patman: I am sure they have to be reappropriated. The funds
received cannot be reused, they have to be reappropriated.
The Chairman: Relying upon that assurance, the Chair overrules
the point of order because additional legislation would be
necessary.
Senate Ruling on Public Debt Transaction Financing
Sec. 4.47 The Presiding Officer of the Senate ruled that a provision in
a bill authorizing use of proceeds of public debt transactions for
financing loans to the Development Loan Fund did not constitute an
appropriation in a legislative bill in contravention of Senate Rule
XVI.
On July 1, 1959,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the following point of order was
raised, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12435-37, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
See also Sec. 4.43, supra, for a similar ruling under the
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. President, I desire
to make a point of order regarding the language which appears on
page 16, beginning in line 13, and through line 13 on page 17. That
part of the bill is section 203; and I make the point of order
against it. . . .
The point of order is that that provision constitutes an
appropriation, and that an appropriation cannot be made in a
legislative bill reported by the Foreign Relations Committee. . . .
I invite the attention of the Chair to the language of the
provision itself:
(b) For purposes of the loans provided for in this section,
the Sec
[[Page 5084]]
retary of the Treasury is authorized to use the proceeds of the
sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act
as now in force or as hereafter amended, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond
Act are hereby extended to include this purpose. The President
shall determine the terms and conditions of any advances or
loans made to the Fund pursuant to this section. . . .
The amount of such obligations also may not exceed the
limitations specified in section 203(a) of this Act except
that, to the extent that assets of the Fund other than
capitalization provided pursuant to section 203(a) are
available, obligations may be incurred beyond such limitations.
. . .
The Presiding Officer: <SUP>(11)</SUP> The Chair has not had an
opportunity to study the point of order. After discussion with the
Parliamentarian, the Chair believes it may be necessary to examine
the precedents in connection with this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank E. Moss (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair wonders whether the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee has any comment to make in connection with this matter.
Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I
think the precedents are so clear that the Chair would not need to
study the matter. There have been many precedents. The form of this
provision is precisely the same as the language used 2 years ago
when the Senate voted to approve this very operation of borrowing
through the public debt transactions. . . .
The Presiding Officer: In view of the precedents of other
legislation which has passed this body, including revolving funds
created thereunder, even though the point of order was not squarely
raised before, the Chair feels disposed to follow the precedents,
and overrules the point of order.