to August, 1978. 26/ Also in these debates, Congr indicated very clearly that in his opinion the IRS

25/ The Ashbrook Amendment passed the House on Ju 1981. See 127 Cong. Rec. H5398 (daily ed., July 3 It was approved by the Senate Committee on Appropr September 15, 1981. See 127 Cong. Rec. D1057 (dai Sept. 15, 1981). Although the House bill has not enacted, it was temporarily effective from October until November 20, 1981, pursuant to Pub. L. No. 9 continuing Appropriations Act. That Act was exten amendment, to December 15, 1981. See Pub. L. No. December 15, a joint resolution further extending conditions for fiscal year 1982 became law. See P 97-92.

26/ See Appendix E, infra.

n IRS procedures.

pendix F, infra. One statement by Congressman hese debates could be read to suggest that he the IRS to have authority to deny tax-exempt iscriminatory private schools:

IRS already has sufficient authority to

with private tax-exempt schools which discriminate use of race. The proposed IRS regulations, and e Wrights's [Judge Hart's?] unconstitutional pation of Congressional taxing and appropriations thinly disguised as a court order ejected by this body, and in any case, will be cted by the voters this fall at the Presidential congressional levels.

rs -

-

should

ec. H7209 (daily ed., Aug. 19, 1980). However, ent also could be read in context as an acknowledgemen he IRS would continue to be able to act under its 1978 rulings and procedures. This would seem the able construction in light of the congressman's atements indicating that Green v. Connally lacked 1 authority and that tax exemptions should not be conequivalent of federal subsidies. See Appendix B.

appropriations measures are "Acts of Congr
but the latter have the limited and specif
of providing funds for authorized programs
voting on appropriations measures, legisla
entitled to operate under the assumption t
funds will be devoted to purposes which ar
and not for any purpose forbidden. Withou
an assurance, every appropriations measure
be pregnant with prospects of altering sub
legislation.
Not only would this le
absurd result of requiring Members to revi
exhaustively the background of every autho
before voting on an appropriation, but it
flout the very rules the Congress carefull
to avoid this need. House Rule XXI (2), fo
instance, specifically provides:

"No appropriation shall be reported i general appropriation bill, or be in as an amendment thereto, for any expe not previously authorized by law, unl continuation of appropriations for su public works as are already in progre Nor shall any provision in any such b amendment thereto changing existing 1 In order. (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the Ashbrook and Dornan Amendme

no legitimate basis for ascribing to Congress an

trary to that reflected in the language of Section and its legislative history.

Indeed, in light of

93-354 0-82--11

of the language of Section 501(c)(3), even less weight c accorded to conflicting views of subsequent Congresses r garding the interpretation of the statute.

A similar issue of statutory construction was involv SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103 (1978), which involved a reena in 1964 of Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act c 1934. 28/ In the Senate committee report accompanying th 1964 legislation, the Commission's interpretation of Sect 12(k) was endorsed. 29/ The Supreme Court rejected the argument that this later expression of congressional inte should prevail over the plain, and contrary, meaning of t statute, declaring (436 U.S. at 121):

Even if we were willing to presume such general
awareness on the part of Congress, we are not
at all sure that such awareness at the time
of reenactment would be tantamount to amendment
of what we conceive to be the rather plain meaning
of the language of § 12(k). On this point the
present case differs significantly from United
States v. Correll, [389 U.S. 299, 304 (1967)]
where the Court took pains to point out in
relying on a construction of a tax statute by
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that "to
the extent that the words chosen by Congress cut
in either direction, they tend to support rather
than defeat the Commissioner's position.

28/ Section 12(k) permits the SEC "summarily to suspend trading in any security. . . for a period not exceeding te days" under certain specified circumstances.

22/ The Senate committee report stated:

"The Commission has consistently construed section
19(a) (4) as permitting it to issue more than one sus-
pension if, upon reexamination at the end of the 10-
day period, it determines that another suspension is
necessary. The committee accepts this interpretation.

single statement in debate on the 1982 extension Amendment (see n.27 supra,). 30/ In the context differences of opinion expressed in the debates w to the validity of the Service's 1970 policy, thi

30/ Shortly after the IRS announced its new posi regard to the tax exempt status of racially discr schools, the IRS Commissioner appeared to testify Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational Oppo The Commissioner explained the Service's new poli proposed modes of enforcement. The Chairman of t Committee urged him to monitor attendance records to accept a private school's assurance of a nondi admissions policy. Hearings, Equal Educational before the Senate Select Comm., 91st Cong., 2d Se 2028 (1970). This colloquy amounted to no more t reiteration of the the Service's recent policy an of approval by an individual Senator. No legisla to the tax laws was proposed or considered.