[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[§ 72. District of Columbia]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 6421-6427]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
Sec. 72. District of Columbia
Public Assistance; Apportionment to Escape Deficiency
Sec. 72.1 An amendment to the District of Columbia appro
[[Page 6422]]
priation bill providing that no part of the appropriation for
public assistance shall be expended in such a manner as to require
a deficiency to supplement the appropriation was held to be a
proper limitation and in order as not changing the law 31 USC
Sec. 665(c) (see Revised Statutes Sec. 3679) already requiring
expenditures in such manner.
On Feb. 1, 1938,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9181. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Assistance
For the purpose of affording relief to residents of the
District of Columbia who are unemployed or otherwise in distress
because of the existing emergency, to be expended by the Board of
Public Welfare of the District of Columbia by employment and direct
relief, in the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and under
rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board and without
regard to the provisions of any other law, payable from the
revenues of the District of Columbia, $900,000, and not to exceed
7\1/2\ percent of this appropriation and of Federal grants
reimbursed under this appropriation shall be expended for personal
services: Provided That all auditing, disbursing, and accounting
for funds administered through the Public Assistance Division of
the Board of Public Welfare, including all employees engaged in
such work and records relating thereto, shall be under the
supervision and control of the Auditor of the District of Columbia:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so apportioned
and distributed by the Commissioners over the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered, during such fiscal
year, as to constitute the total amount that will be utilized
during such fiscal year for such purposes: Provided further, That
not more than $75 per month shall be paid therefrom to any one
family. . . .
Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 58, line 2, after
the colon, insert ``Provided, That no part of this
appropriation shall be expended in such a manner as to require
a deficiency to supplement such appropriation.''
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Boileau] will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins]
would be legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore not in
order. The same argument and the same reasons would apply to this
amendment as to the former pro
[[Page 6423]]
viso which was stricken. It is legislation on an appropriation
bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has examined the amendment carefully and is of the
opinion this is a limitation; therefore the point of order is
overruled.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The amendment was in fact in conformity with existing law [see 31
USC Sec. 665(c)], which required expenditures to be carried out
in the manner described in the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segregation
Sec. 72.2 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill
providing that no part of the money contained therein should be
used for any agency, office, or department of the District of
Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District of Columbia
in employment, facilities afforded, services performed,
accommodations furnished, instructions, or aid granted, on account
of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin of the
citizens of the District of Columbia was held a proper limitation
restricting the availability of funds and therefore in order.
On Apr. 5, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5990. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]:
In line 7, page 2, insert the following: ``Provided, That no part
of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used for any of
the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, office, or department
of the District of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the
District of Columbia in employment, facilities afforded, services
performed, accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted,
on account of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin
of the citizens of the District of Columbia.''
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
amendment is not germane, and that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill, in that it attempts to change the fundamental
laws of the District of Columbia that have been established and in
effect for at least 80 years or probably a hundred years.
This amendment, if adopted, would destroy the school system of
the District of Columbia. It would stir up race hatred and bring
about race trouble, the like of which nothing else has ever
[[Page 6424]]
done in all the history of the District. If it is done, the effect
will be to destroy the legislation providing funds with which to
carry on the public schools in the District of Columbia. . . .
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is definitely a negative limitation. It prohibits the use
of funds appropriated in this bill for certain specific purposes
which are enumerated in the amendment. It does not change any
existing law and Congress has the right to withhold the funds for
any purpose enumerated in an appropriation act or to withhold funds
for any purpose for which an appropriation is being made.
This bill makes appropriations for the District of Columbia.
The amendment simply states that none of the funds appropriated in
this bill shall be expended to do certain things. . . .
There is no additional duty imposed upon anyone. The amendment
deals with an existing condition, that is, segregation in
education, segregation in recreation, in hospitals and other
places. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has listened very attentively to the arguments pro
and con and has reached the conclusion that the Holman rule is not
in issue at the present moment. The wording of the amendment reads,
``Provided that no part of any appropriation contained in this act
shall be used for any of the purposes therein mentioned,'' and they
are enumerated.
After serious consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that
the amendment is a proper limitation and overrules the point of
order.
Teachers Doing Clerical Work
Sec. 72.3 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill
providing that no part of an appropriation shall be used to pay the
salary of any teacher performing any clerical work other than that
necessary or incidental to the classroom teaching assignments was
held to be a proper limitation and in order.
On Apr. 2, 1937,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering provisions of H.R. 5996, relating to appropriations for
personal services of teachers. An amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 81 Cong. Rec. 3106, 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment, which is at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 25, line 3, after
the word ``grades'' insert ``Provided, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any teacher
performing any clerical work other than that necessary or
incidental to the classroom teaching assignments.''
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point
of order to that amendment for the same reason.(3) The
existing law today says
[[Page 6425]]
nothing about clerical work being done by teachers. This amendment,
of course, is introduced for the purpose of preventing teachers
from doing any clerical work. Even though it places a limitation on
some clerical work that they may be doing, it is contrary to
existing law and the point of order would lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Chairman had just ruled out of order a provision in the bill
that ``teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that
which is necessary or incidental to their regular classroom
teaching assignments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from
Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Collins: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The amendment here offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi provides that no part of this appropriation shall be
used to pay the salary of any teacher performing any clerical work
other than that necessary or incidental to the regular classroom
teaching assignment.
The Chair is of opinion that this amendment in the form
presented is very clearly a limitation and retrenchment of
expenses, that it is germane, and that the point of order should be
overruled.
Airport Access Road
Sec. 72.4 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington,
D.C. airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the
appropriation which may be used for the construction of an
authorized access road was held to be a proper limitation and in
order.
On June 29, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 3,
line 6, after the word ``expended,'' insert ``provided that not to
exceed $400,000 of the foregoing appropriation may be used for an
access road north from the airport.''
Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on
an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, we think the amendment cures the
objection raised by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa. We think
this one is purely a straight limitation. It requires no outside
effort on the part of anybody. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access
roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that
the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which
funds may be used, that it is
[[Page 6426]]
germane to the bill and is not legislation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Personal Services
Sec. 72.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill
appropriating for personal services and providing that no other
appropriation made in the bill would be available for the
employment of additional assistant engineers or watchmen for the
care of the district buildings was held authorized by law and in
order.
On Jan. 31, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for
1939. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1303, 1304, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For personal services, including temporary labor, and service
of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per hour,
$129,000: Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act
shall be available for the employment of additional assistant
engineers or watchmen for the care of the District buildings.
Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a
point of order against the proviso in this paragraph, but first I
wish to raise a point of order as to the entire paragraph. . . .
The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. In the
pending appropriation bill this proviso is found on page 4, line
15, with respect to the care of District buildings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act
shall be available for the employment of additional assistant
engineers or watchmen for the care of the District Building.
To that proviso the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harlan] directs a
point of order upon the ground that the proviso is in the nature of
legislation which is not authorized by law.
Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Caldwell: May I ask whether the point of order was not
later changed from the particular language referred to to the
entire section?
The Chairman: The Chair will reach that in a moment. The Chair
is now directing his attention to the proviso because the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Harlan], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Collins], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] directed
their arguments largely to that proviso.
The authority for making appropriations for the care of
District buildings is found in Fiftieth Statutes at Large, page
377, in this language:
Provided, That all buildings belonging to the District of
Columbia
[[Page 6427]]
shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the
Commissioners of the District.
This proviso does not in any manner seek to take from the
District Commissioners their authority as custodians of the
buildings under their duties and responsibilities as Commissioners
of the District. This proviso in no manner contravenes the language
of this positive law. It is more in the nature of a limitation upon
the appropriation than a contravention or change of existing law.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair
permit an interruption?
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Nichols: The point is, Mr. Chairman, that before this
proviso the existing law was that all of the buildings in the
District of Columbia should be under the control of the
Commissioners of the District, except certain buildings included in
which was the court building by specific provision. That was under
the control of the judges of the courts. This proviso wipes out the
control of the judges over this court building and places the
control in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. To this
extent the proviso does change existing law.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Oklahoma that the feature to which the Chair is especially
addressing the ruling is whether this is a change of existing law.
The gentleman from Ohio bases his point of order on the ground that
this is a change of the law affecting the custody of the building
according to the statute the Chair just quoted. The proviso under
consideration in no manner changes existing law but is merely a
limitation on an appropriation. The Chair so holding must
necessarily overrule the point of order.
The gentleman from Ohio also directed the point of order
against the paragraph the first portion of which includes this
language:
For personal services, including temporary labor, and
service of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per
hour, $129,000.
Standing alone, as a matter of course, this language is immune
from a point of order because it is solely an appropriation for
personal services, and so forth. If, therefore, the argument
directed to the proviso goes down, necessarily the point of order
against the paragraph as a whole must go down.
The Chair overrules the point of order directed against the
paragraph.