[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-8]
[Page 5093-5100]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 7. Nonprivileged Appropriations--``Continuing'' Appropriations
The right of the Committee on Appropriations to report at any time
is confined strictly to general appropriation bills.<SUP>(19)</SUP>
This section discusses the consideration of appropriations not falling
within the category of general appropriation bills. For example, joint
resolutions continuing appropriations pending enactment of general
appropriation bills for the ensuing fiscal year are not ``general''
appropriation bills and therefore are not reported or called up as
privileged.<SUP>(20)</SUP> Similarly, supplemental appropriations for a
single agency or department of government do not comprise a ``general''
appropriation bill, though bills making supplemental appropriations for
diverse agencies are considered general appropriation
bills.<SUP>(1)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the discussion at the beginning of Sec. 6, supra; and the
precedents in this section.
20. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2
(4th ed.). See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2282, et seq. In
1981, rule XI clause 4, was amended to allow continuing
appropriation bills to be reported as privileged after
September 15 (H. Res. 5, 97th Cong.). Precedents arrising under
this new rule will appear in later volumes.
1. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Continuing Appropriations
Sec. 7.1 Where appropriations for certain operations of the Federal
Government have remained unprovided for at the beginning of a
fiscal year, through the failure of enactment of the supply bills
customarily providing for such operations, a bill to extend
appropriations for a limited time period for the same operations as
those previously provided for, and under the same conditions,
restrictions, and limitations has been considered by unanimous
consent.
On June 30, 1937,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the following actions took place in
the
[[Page 5094]]
House prior to passage of H.R. 7726:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 81 Cong. Rec. 6611, 6612, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I call up . . .
H.R. 7726 . . . and ask unanimous consent that the bill may be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, as I understand it, the Senate has adjourned until
tomorrow, so that it is absolutely impossible to have all the
appropriation bills passed before the 1st of July. I have never
known of this kind of a situation arising before.
The Speaker: <SUP>(3)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That for defraying during the first
half of the month of July 1937 all expenses of the necessary
operations of the Federal Government, which, on July 1, 1937,
remain unprovided with appropriations through the failure of
enactment on or before such date of the supply bills
customarily providing for such operations, there are hereby
extended for and during such period all appropriations
available for obligation for such expenses during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1937, in the same detail and under the
same conditions, restrictions, and limitations as such
appropriations were provided for on account of such fiscal
year. . . .
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year ends at
midnight tonight, and all departments for which supply bills have
not been enacted by that time are without authority to operate.
They can spend no money; they cannot enter into contracts; they
cannot employ assistants, rent quarters, buy supplies, or legally
transact business of any character.
All of the supply bills have been enacted with the exception of
two War Department bills and the Interior bill.
It is our hope that they will be ready, in the next day or two,
but in the meantime, in order to provide for the maintenance of the
War Department and the Interior Department, it is necessary to pass
a continuing resolution.
This is the usual bill, prepared in the regular form, and has
been submitted to, and approved by, the Comptroller and the
Director of the Budget.
Continuing Appropriations Not Privileged
Sec. 7.2 A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for
departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until the
regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general
appropriation bill,'' and is not reported as privileged.
Whereas general appropriation bills are normally called up as
privileged, consideration of joint resolutions continuing
appropriations is usually made in order by unanimous consent, since
such resolutions are not reported as privileged. The following pro
[[Page 5095]]
ceedings <SUP>(4)</SUP> are illustrative of the manner in which bills
providing for continuing appropriations for departments or agencies of
government are made in order for consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1967. See
also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2282 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Wednesday, September 27, or any
day thereafter, for the House to consider a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations.
The Speaker: <SUP>(5)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, I wish to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is this: Is a
continuing resolution subject to amendment when it is brought onto
the floor of the House, if the amendment is germane?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that any germane amendment
will be in order. It would have to be a germane amendment.
Mr. Bow: I thank the Speaker, and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the
right to object, I would assume the Speaker could add to that the
statement: ``If the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of
offering an amendment.''
Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry is that not correct? .
. .
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers
itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of
recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the Speaker.
. . .
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this is the third continuing resolution
to be considered by the House this year.
I would also say in this case, as in former cases, that the
continuing resolution would be considered in the House under the 5-
minute rule, and I assume any relevant amendment could be offered.
. . .
Mr. Gross: . . . I assume the continuing resolution is for a
month or is it for a longer period?
Mr. Mahon: It would probably be for 1 month. The committee
meets next week to consider the matter. We are pushing to get our
bills through, but there are three appropriation bills which we
have not been able to report. One of them is military construction;
another is foreign assistance; both of these are awaiting
authorization; another is the final supplemental which will include
the poverty program for which authorization legislation has not
been considered. There is other legislation to be worked on before
the supplemental appropriation bill can be reported. . . .
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman
says the 5-
[[Page 5096]]
minute rule will prevail and that any germane amendments will be in
order to the continuing resolution, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Mahon]?
There was no objection.
Appropriation for Specific Purpose
Sec. 7.3 A joint resolution making an appropriation to a department for
a specific purpose is not a ``general'' appropriation bill within
the meaning of Rule XI clause 22 [now clause 4(a)] and is therefore
not privileged for consideration when reported by the Committee on
Appropriations. For this reason the Committee on Rules may provide
for the immediate consideration of a special bill reported from the
Committee on Appropriations.
On Aug. 4, 1971,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the following proceedings took place
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 29384, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up [House Resolution 577] and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 577
Resolved, That immediately 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 joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 833) making an appropriation for the Department of Labor
for the fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes. . . .
The Speaker: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman from California (Mr.
Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sisk: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 577 provides an
open rule with 1 hour of debate on House Joint Resolution 833,
which implements the emergency assistance Employment Act of 1971.
House Joint Resolution 833, being for a single purpose, is not
regarded as a general appropriation bill. For this reason it was
necessary to grant a rule providing for its consideration.
Supplemental Appropriations
Sec. 7.4 A joint resolution making a supplemental appropriation for a
single department of the government is not a ``general
appropriation bill,'' and not reported as privileged, and is
therefore brought up for consideration in a different manner.
On Jan. 30, 1962,<SUP>(8)</SUP> a joint resolution was made in
order by unanimous consent, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5097]]
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that a joint resolution providing appropriations for the
Veterans' Administration may be in order for consideration
tomorrow.
The Speaker: <SUP>(9)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
On the next day,<SUP>(10)</SUP> proceedings were as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 1385, 87th Cong. 2d Sess, Jan. 31, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I call up the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 612) making supplemental appropriations for
the Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1962, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
The reference of the joint resolution to the Union Calendar was
carried in the Record as follows:
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were
delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
Mr. Thomas: Committee on Appropriations. House Joint Resolution
612. Joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for the
Veterans' Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962,
and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1294).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: Proposals for supplemental appropriations, normally requested
by a communication from the President (31 USC Sec. 14) are
sometimes requested by message. The usual practice is for the
President to transmit letters requesting such appropriations to
the Speaker, who refers them to the Committee on Appropriations
and orders them printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Supplemental Appropriations
Sec. 7.5 The House has given unanimous consent to make in order
``tomorrow, or on a subsequent day this week,'' consideration of a
joint resolution providing supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense, pursuant to a message from the President.
On May 4, 1965,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 9390, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order tomorrow, or on a subsequent day
this week, to consider a House joint resolution making
[[Page 5098]]
a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Defense.
The Speaker: <SUP>(13)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, it is my understanding that the message from
the President of the United States which has been just submitted
will satisfy the Budget and Accounting Act as far as a budget
estimate is concerned.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is
certainly my opinion, and I am sure the gentleman is correct. This
is a request for $700 million by the President. It follows one of
the procedures used by the Executive in submitting budget estimates
and I consider this, and I am sure the gentleman does, a budget
request from the President.
Mr. Laird: I would like to state to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Mahon] that it was my understanding yesterday that before we
considered this we would have a budget estimate. I wholeheartedly
support the principle of following the regular procedure in seeing
that these funds are appropriated, and if this satisfies the Budget
and Accounting Act, I certainly would have no objection to its
being considered either tomorrow or the next day.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Bill Reducing Appropriations
Sec. 7.6 A bill reported from the Committee on Appropriations reducing
certain appropriations and contract authorizations available for
fiscal 1946 was held not to be a general appropriation bill and a
germane amendment rescinding appropriations was permitted.
On Oct. 19, 1945,<SUP>(14)</SUP> a bill <SUP>(15)</SUP> as
described above was under consideration. The bill contained a paragraph
appropriating money for grants to states for unemployment compensation
benefits and related expenses. During consideration of the bill, an
amendment was offered, and a point of order made against the amendment.
During the ensuing debate on a point of order, a question arose as to
the nature of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 9851, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 4407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
social security board
There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1946, for grants to States for administration of unemployment
compensation and employment service facilities operated in
conjunction therewith, as authorized in title III of the Social
Security Act, approved August 14, 1935, as amended,
$30,000,000, which shall be in addition to the amounts
appropriated for such purposes in title II
[[Page 5099]]
of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1946.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: On page 8, line 10,
after the period, strike out lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
``On July 1, 1946, any unobligated balance of the
appropriation made in the first paragraph under the heading
`Employment Office Facilities and Services' in title VII of the
Labor-Federal Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the
surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, and after June 30,
1946, appropriations shall be made only for grants to States
for administration of unemployment compensation and employment
service facilities as authorized in title III of the Social
Security Act, approved August 11, 1935, as amended, and in the
act of June 6, 1933, as amended, known as the Wagner-Peyser
Act.''. . .
Mr. [Everett M.]. Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the amendment is not germane, that it is
legislative in character.
The Chairman: <SUP>(16)</SUP> In the opinion of the Chair, the
amendment is obviously germane. It relates to the same subject as
specified in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make
an additional point of order. If I understood the amendment
correctly, it makes an appropriation. Has this bill not been
regarded as a legislative bill?
The Chairman: The paragraph under consideration makes an
appropriation of $30,000,000.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind,
is the situation: The amendment is a rescission. The paragraph
which is made in order under the rule is an appropriation;
therefore the amendment is not in order.
The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment
offered is germane to the paragraph which deals with appropriations
for this purpose. The amendment offered also deals with
appropriations for the same purpose. In the opinion of the Chair
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is
clearly germane and the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Has the Chair ruled at any time
whether this is an appropriation bill or a legislative bill?
The Chairman: The Chair does not have to rule upon that
question. This is a question with reference to rescission of funds
and incidentally involves appropriations, as does this particular
paragraph. The Chair, in a bill of this character, which is not a
general appropriation bill, is simply called upon to pass upon the
question of germaneness. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I do not question the germaneness,
but I heard the bill referred to as a legislative bill, and if it
is interpreted as a legislative bill, the amendment making an
appropriation, of course, would not be in order.
The Chairman: This certainly is not a general appropriation
bill but a bill with reference to rescission of appropriations. The
only question which could occur from a parliamentary
[[Page 5100]]
standpoint would be the question of germaneness. . . . The Chair
overruled the point of order. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As a matter of fact, the
rule waiving points of order would apply to any point of order that
an amendment was legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is not at all passing upon that
question. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, since that question has
been raised, may we have a ruling on the question whether or not
the rule waives points of order as against amendments or merely
waives points of order against the contents of the bill?
The Chairman: The Chair is called upon to rule only upon the
point of order made and cannot rule upon other points of order not
pertinent to the pending amendment. The Chair has overruled the
point of order.<SUP>(17)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: A special rule (see 91 Cong. Rec. 9813,
79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945) had provided that the
above bill be considered for amendment by appropriation titles.
Appropriation bills are, of course, generally read for
amendment by paragraphs. See Sec. Sec. 11.8-11.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------