[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 20. Other Purposes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5570-5586]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec.  20. Other Purposes

Civil Defense

Sec. 20.1 Language in an appropriation bill making funds available for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    states by loan or grant, for civil defense purposes, was conceded 
    to be without authorization and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Mar. 20, 1957,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6070, a bill making appropriations for 
sundry executive bureaus, a point of order was sustained against 
language therein, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 4046, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Emergency supplies and equipment: For expenses necessary for 
    warehousing and maintenance of reserve stocks of emergency civil-
    defense materials as authorized by subsection (h) of section 201 of 
    the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, and for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    the several States, and the District of Columbia, and the 
    Territories and possessions of the United States, by loan or grant, 
    for training and educational purposes, under such terms and 
    conditions as the Administrator shall prescribe, $3,300,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    following language, beginning in line 19 of page 5, ``for 
    distribution of radiological instruments and detection devices to 
    the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories 
    and possessions of the United States, by loan or grant, for 
    training and educational

[[Page 5571]]

    purposes, under such terms and conditions as the Administrator 
    shall prescribe,'' on the ground that the distribution of such 
    radiological instruments and detection devices is not authorized in 
    the organic legislation governing the Federal Civil Defense 
    Administration, Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress, 2d session, as 
    amended, and therefore is in violation of rule XXI, paragraph 2, of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Congressional Committee Investigative Staff

Sec. 20.2 An appropriation for employment by the Committee on 
    Appropriations of 50 qualified persons to check upon progress of 
    contracts let by the United States and to report upon any waste, 
    unnecessary additions to cost, or negligence, was not authorized by 
    law.

    On June 16, 1942,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7232, a deficiency appropriation. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 5252, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: Page 2, line 
    22, insert:
        ``For the purpose of enabling the Appropriations Committee to 
    employ the services of not to exceed 50 highly qualified persons to 
    maintain a constant check upon the progress of contracts let by the 
    United States, or any department thereof, and to report upon any 
    avoidable waste, unnecessary additions to cost, negligence, or 
    other matters increasing the cost of such contracts to the United 
    States, $500,000.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it proposes legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Will the gentleman from California 
    state to the Chair whether he knows of any legislation authorizing 
    the appropriations proposed in this amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: No; I do not know of any 
    legislation authorizing such expenditures.
        The Chairman: Unless there is legislation authorizing the 
    appropriation, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri.

Congressional Parking Lot

Sec. 20.3 To the legislative appropriation bill, an amendment providing 
    funds for a parking lot for the use of Members and employees of 
    Congress was ruled out because unauthorized by law.

    On May 15, 1952,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5572]]

Whole of the legislative appropriation (H.R 7313), a point of order was 
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 5283, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter F.] Horan [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
         The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Horan:
            On page 15, line 9, after the semi-colon and after the word 
        ``and'', insert the following new language: ``for converting 
        reservations 6-C and 6-E on Canal Street into a parking lot for 
        the use of Members and employees of Congress.''
             On page 15, line 13, strike out the amount ``$218,500'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof the amount ``$69,500.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. I will reserve the point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Horan: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Washington 
    concedes the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

Expenses of Presidential Committee on Education

Sec. 20.4 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing for expenses 
    of the President's Committee on Education Beyond High School was 
    admitted to be unauthorized and was ruled out on this basis.

    On July 12, 1956, (7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12138, a supplemental appropriation bill. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 102 Cong. Rec. 12555, 12556, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: On page 21, at the end of line 6, add a new paragraph as 
    follows:

       ``President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School, 
                    Executive Office of the President''

        ``For necessary expenses of the President's Committee on 
    Education Beyond the High School, including services authorized by 
    section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates 
    not to exceed $50 per diem for individuals; expenses of attendance 
    at meetings concerned with the purposes of the committee; and 
    actual transportation expenses and an allowance of not to exceed 
    $12 per diem in lieu of subsistence while away from their homes or 
    regular places of business, for persons attending conferences 
    called by the committee: $300,000.''. . .
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on the point of order that this is not authorized by law and that 
    the gentleman's

[[Page 5573]]

    amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Fernandez] has offered an amendment which has been reported by the 
    Clerk. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty] has made the 
    point of order that this appropriation is not authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New Mexico in his remarks on his amendment 
    stated that authorization had not been had, and that it was not 
    authorized by law.
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Executive Departments--Travel Expenses

Sec. 20.5 Language in an appropriation bill making all appropriations 
    for the executive departments and independent establishments 
    available under Presidential regulations for expenses of 
    transportation of new appointees and their families from their 
    places of residence to places of employment outside the continental 
    United States and back was held unauthorized by law and legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1984, an independent offices appropriation. When the 
following paragraph was reached in the reading, a point of order was 
raised against it and conceded by the manager of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 964, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Appropriations of the executive departments and independent 
    establishments for the fiscal year 1946 shall be available for 
    expenses of travel of new appointees and of transportation of their 
    immediate families in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
    President, and expenses of transportation of household goods and 
    personal effects in accordance with the act of October 10, 1940 (5 
    U.S.C. 73c-1), from the places of their actual residence at the 
    time of appointment to places of employment outside continental 
    United States, and for such expenses on return of civilian officers 
    and employees from their posts of duty outside continental United 
    States to the places of their actual residence at time of 
    assignment to duty outside the United States.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against subparagraph (c) on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I may state in this connection that 
    the only reason I made the point of order to this paragraph and not 
    to the previous paragraph is because subparagraph (b) is limited to 
    transfer where permanent duty is involved. Subparagraph (c) is not 
    so limited. . . .

[[Page 5574]]

        The Chairman: (10) The point of order made against 
    subparagraph (c) on page 65 is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.6 Language in an appropriation bill making funds available for 
    reimbursements of employees and others, for use by them of their 
    privately owned automobiles on official business, was conceded to 
    be unauthorized and was held not in order on an appropriation bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 964, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            (d) Appropriations of the executive departments and 
        independent establishments for the fiscal year 1946 shall be 
        available for reimbursement, at not to exceed 3 cents per mile 
        (unless otherwise permitted by law), of employees or others 
        rendering service to the Government for use by them of 
        privately owned automobiles for transportation on official 
        business within the limits of their official stations or places 
        of service.

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order. It is legislation, but, Mr. Chairman, it was 
    placed in the bill for the purpose of uniformity. This provision is 
    carried in practically every appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The point of order . . . is 
    sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.7 Language in an appropriation bill providing for the payment 
    of actual transportation expenses not to exceed $10 per diem in 
    lieu of subsistence for the Council of Personnel Administration was 
    held not to be authorized by existing law.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 439, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For every expenditure requisite for and 
    incident to the work of the Council of Personnel Administration, 
    created by section 7 of Executive Order No. 7916, dated June 24, 
    1938, including personal services in the District of Columbia; 
    traveling expenses, including, when specifically directed by the 
    chairman, not exceeding $800 for expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the furtherance of the work of the council; printing 
    and binding; books of reference and

[[Page 5575]]

    periodicals; and the payment of actual transportation expenses and 
    not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence and other 
    expenses of persons serving while away from their homes, without 
    other compensation from the United States, in an advisory capacity 
    to the council, $25,040.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the section beginning on line 20, page 
    15, and ending on line 9, page 16, that it is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly 
    there is language in this section which changes existing law, 
    particularly the language on page 16 beginning . . . after the word 
    ``periodicals'' and reading as follows:
        and the payment of actual transportation expenses and not to 
        exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence.

        This language unquestionably changes existing law and would 
    make the paragraph subject to a point of order. I concede the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Illinois makes 
    a point of order against the paragraph, and the gentleman from 
    Virginia concedes the point of order. The point of order is 
    therefore sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government Corporation Reserve Fund

Sec. 20.8 A provision of a general appropriation bill requiring a 
    certain amount of the sum authorized therein for administrative 
    expenses of a government corporation to be placed in reserve and 
    used only when and in the amounts required for designated 
    operations of the corporation in excess of budget estimates 
    therefor was ruled out when no authorization was cited in support 
    of the appropriation.

    On May 1, 1952,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7314) the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 4741, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I make 
    my point of order now?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: I make the point of order against title II and 
    specifically against that portion beginning at line 18 on page 45, 
    on the ground that it is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . 
    . The language placing $2,500,000 in a reserve fund is legislation 
    and not an appropriation. As a matter of fact, I think the point of 
    order could be raised against the entire title, because it is an 
    authorization to make expenditures, as appears at line 3 on page 
    45. However, I desire to direct the point of order at this moment 
    to the provision beginning in line 18.

[[Page 5576]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    appropriation for the Commodity Credit Corporation is not in 
    actuality an appropriation, but it is a limitation on how much of 
    their funds they can use for administrative expenses. In the 
    absence of such limitation they could spend all their money for 
    their operations.
        The committee has fixed a limitation at $16,500,000 as the 
    limit of their funds which they can spend; otherwise they could 
    spend all of their funds. . . .
        Mr. Multer: The difficulty with the argument made against the 
    point of order is that this authorization now makes the reservation 
    and then provides that this sum of $2,500,000 shall be expended for 
    sums in excess of the budget estimates. I am now referring to line 
    24, same page. In other words, they take the money out and reserve 
    it, then provide it shall be spent for purposes in excess of budget 
    estimates. That is the real vice of this provision. . . .
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Mississippi cite specific 
    law authorizing the committee to set aside these funds in reserve?
        Mr. Whitten: I do not know of any law that authorizes the 
    committee to do so; no. I had not anticipated this would arise This 
    leaves, if the point of order is sustained, $16,500,000 to carry on 
    the administrative work instead of $14,500,000 as now provided.
        The Chairman: In the absence of any citation on the part of the 
    gentleman, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

NASA--Scientific Consultations

Sec. 20.9 Where legislation authorizing the National Aeronautics and 
    Space Administration to use appropriated funds for scientific 
    consultations had not become law, language in an appropriation bill 
    to permit use of ``not to exceed $10,000 of appropriations in this 
    act . . . for scientific consultations'' was ruled out on a point 
    of order as not yet authorized.

    On Apr. 19, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11776, a bill making appropriations for sundry 
independent executive bureaus. When the Clerk read the following 
paragraph, a point of order was raised as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 8232, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not to exceed $10,000 of appropriations in this Act for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be available 
    for scientific consultations and any emergency or extraordinary 
    expense pursuant to section 1(f) of the legislative authorization 
    for appropriations for the fiscal year 1961.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[[Page 5577]]

        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: The language on page 27, beginning with line 14 
    through line 19, I contend is legislation providing for an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we will have to 
    admit the point of order as good, the entire legislation has not 
    been cleared by both bodies or signed by the President, so if the 
    gentleman wants to make a point of order against any section of it, 
    to be perfectly frank about it, it is good.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas concedes the point of 
    order and the Chair sustains the point of order.

National Resources Planning Council

Sec. 20.10 An amendment making an appropriation for the National 
    Resources Planning Council was held not authorized by law.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1362, an independent offices appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 1072, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Magnuson: On page 63, line 14, insert 
    a new title:

                   ``National Resources Planning Council

        ``For all salaries, expenses, including postwar planning 
    research, there shall be appropriated for the National Resources 
    Planning Council the sum of $415,000.''

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order on the paragraph on the ground that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule. . . . 
    No law has been pointed out to the Chair, and the Chair is aware of 
    no statute that would authorize the appropriation. The Chair, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Office--Substitute Mail Carriers

Sec. 20.11 An appropriation for payment to substitute mail carriers for 
    work on all holidays except Sundays was not authorized by law.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1648, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation. During consideration of the bill, a point of order 
against an amendment was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 742, 743, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Rural Delivery Service: For pay of rural carriers, auxiliary 
    carriers, sub

[[Page 5578]]

    stitutes for rural carriers on annual and sick leave, clerks in 
    charge of rural stations, and tolls and ferriage, Rural Delivery 
    Service, and for the incidental expenses thereof, $92,200,000 of 
    which not less than $200,000 shall be available for extensions and 
    new service.
        Mr. [Butler B.] Hare [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hare: Page 39, line 20, strike out 
        ``$92,200,000'' and insert ``$94,000,000'', and at the end of 
        line 21, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add 
        ``including delivery service by substitute carriers on all 
        holidays except Sundays.''

        Mr. [Emmett] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against the amendment. The second provision of the 
    amendment is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Is there any law at the present 
    time authorizing the payment to substitute carriers on Sunday? Is 
    there any law presently that authorizes that payment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hare: No, except city carriers and clerks, a general 
    authorization under the law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
    reads as follows:

            Strike out ``$92,200,000'' and insert ``$94,000,000'', and 
        at the end of line 21 strike out the period, insert a comma, 
        and add ``including delivery service by substitute carriers on 
        all holidays except Sundays.''

        The Chair knows of no authorization for the payment of such 
    services. The gentleman from South Carolina very frankly concedes 
    that he knows of no such authorization. The burden of proof being 
    upon the gentleman from South Carolina, who offered the amendment, 
    the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is well taken 
    and sustains the point of order.

President's Emergency Fund

Sec. 20.12 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating $5 
    million for the Emergency Fund for the President was held 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(3) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5201, an independent offices appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the paragraph which follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 355, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Emergency Fund for the President

        Emergency fund for the President: Not to exceed $5,000,000 of 
    the appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,'' contained 
    in the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1943, 
    as supplemented and amended, is hereby continued available until 
    June 30, 1947.
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 5579]]

    of order against the paragraph just read on the ground there is no 
    legislative authority for the appropriation proposed.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Idaho?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I will leave 
    that to the discretion of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes a 
    point of order against the paragraph on the ground that the 
    appropriation is not authorized by law. The Chair has stated to the 
    gentleman in charge of the bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Hendricks], that he would be glad to hear him. In the absence of 
    any statement to the contrary, the Chair is bound by the statement 
    of the gentleman from Idaho and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

President's Wife--Salary

Sec. 20.13 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing for a 
    salary of $10,000 per year for the wife of the President for 
    maintaining the White House was held not authorized by law.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5201), a point of order was made against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 352, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fulton: On page 2, line 15, after 
        the semicolon, insert ``to the wife of the President a salary 
        of $10,000 per year as services for maintaining the White House 
        establishment, not to be expended as the President may 
        determine''; and in line 21 strike out ``$883,660'' and insert 
        ``$893,660.''

        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, while I may 
    concede there is some merit to the proposal of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, I make the point of order against the amendment that 
    it is an appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Fulton] offers an amendment in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            On page 2, line 15, after the semicolon, insert ``to the 
        wife of the President a salary of $10,000 per year as services 
        for maintaining the White House establishment, not to be 
        expended as the President may determine''; and in line 21 
        strike out ``$883,660'' and insert ``$893,660.''

        The gentleman from Florida makes the point of order that it is 
    an appropriation not authorized by law. Clearly it is an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5580]]

Public Health Service--Mineral Disease Treatment

Sec. 20.14 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to appropriate 
    funds to the Public Health Service, Division of Venereal Diseases, 
    for the purpose of continuing the operation of the Hot Springs 
    Transient Medical Center Infirmary at Hot Springs, Arkansas, was 
    held not to be authorized by law.

    On Jan. 17, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8947, a U.S. Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. At one point a point of order was raised after the 
Clerk read an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 649, 650, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. McClellan: On page 39, after line 11, 
    insert a new title and paragraph, as follows:
        ``Public Health Service, Division of Venereal Diseases: For the 
    purpose of continuing the operation and maintenance of the Hot 
    Springs Transient Medical Center Infirmary, located at Hot Springs 
    National Park, Ark., $180,000.''. . .
        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by 
    existing law, and in doing so I would like to compliment the 
    gentleman on the splendid fight he has made for his local community 
    and for his very able presentation of his case, but this would be 
    an irregular proceeding. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Arkansas if there has been an authorization 
    heretofore passed with reference to this project?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McClellan [of Arkansas]: Nothing but a relief 
    appropriation, but a bill is now pending for that purpose.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order because it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, there having been no authorization act 
    heretofore passed.

Student Aid

Sec. 20.15 An appropriation to assist students, in such numbers as the 
    Chairman of the War Manpower Commission would determine, who were 
    participating in accelerated college programs in engineering, 
    physics, and other subjects was not authorized by law.

    On June 5, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7181, a Labor Department and Federal Security Agency 
appropriation. At one point the Clerk read the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 4959, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph (2), 
    insert a

[[Page 5581]]

    new paragraph, as follows: ``To assist students (in such numbers as 
    the chairman of the War Manpower Commission shall determine) 
    participating in accelerated programs in degree-granting colleges 
    and universities in engineering, physics, chemistry, medicine 
    (including veterinary), dentistry, and pharmacy and such other 
    technical and professional fields as said chairman may determine to 
    be necessary in connection with the national war effort, by 
    providing part-time employment, $5,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the bill under consideration, which provides an 
    appropriation for the N.Y.A., there is no authority in law setting 
    up the N.Y.A.; and, therefore, in order that this appropriation for 
    that agency might not be thrown out on a point of order it was 
    necessary to have a special rule waiving points of order against 
    that particular appropriation. That rule waived points of order on 
    that clause in the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment undertakes to make another 
    appropriation which is to be administered under the Chairman of the 
    Manpower Commission. It is the opinion of the Chair that there is 
    no authority in law for the appropriation proposed in the amendment 
    and the Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Surgeon General--Entertainment Expenses

Sec. 20.16 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds 
    ``not to exceed $1,000 for entertainment of officials . . . when 
    authorized by the ``Surgeon General'' was held to be unauthorized 
    and to constitute legislative authority.

    On Mar. 29, 1960,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 11390), a point of 
order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 6863, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 
        6864, 6865, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Assistance to States, General

        To carry out the purposes, not otherwise specifically provided 
    for, of section 314(c) of the Act; to provide consultative services 
    to States pursuant to section 311 of the Act; to make field 
    investigations and demonstrations pursuant to section 301 of the 
    Act; to provide for collecting and compiling mortality, morbidity, 
    and vital statistics; not to exceed $1,000 for entertainment of 
    officials of other countries when specifically authorized by the 
    Surgeon General; and to provide traineeships pursuant to section 
    306 of the Act; $22,620,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on

[[Page 5582]]

    page 23 of the bill, line 1, reading as follows: ``not to exceed 
    $1,000 for entertainment of officials of other countries when 
    specifically authorized by the Surgeon General.''

        I make the point of order that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island [Mr. John E. Fogarty] desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I read this language, it is just 
    a limitation in this appropriation bill that they shall not exceed 
    $1,000 for this purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        It would appear to the Chair that this is language intended to 
    permit of the making available of the sum of $1,000 for 
    entertainment of officials of other countries. It is not in essence 
    or in words a limitation on any appropriation made here. In the 
    absence of the citation of any substantive authority for this, the 
    Chair is compelled to sustain the point of order.

Higher Education Programs

Sec. 20.17 Funds claimed by the report of the Committee on 
    Appropriations to be available, inter alia, to expand educational 
    grants to middle income students but not specifically so earmarked 
    in the paragraph, were held to be generally authorized by the 
    Higher Education Act, although separate legislation modifying those 
    grant programs had not yet been enacted into law, since the 
    paragraph in question referred only to programs authorized by law 
    and since authorizations under all sections of law proposed to be 
    modified by that separate legislation had been extended by law for 
    the fiscal year in question.

    On June 8, 1978,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 12929), the following 
proceedings occurred as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 16778, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               student assistance

            For carrying out subparts 1 ($3,373,100,000), 2 
        ($340,100,000), and 3 ($86,750,000) of part A, and parts C 
        ($520,000,000) and E ($328,900,000) of Title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act, and, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
        General Education Provisions Act, $4,675,750,000, of which 
        $4,651,350,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1980: 
        Provided, That amounts appropriated for basic opportunity 
        grants shall be available first to meet any insufficiencies in 
        entitlements resulting from the payment schedule for basic 
        opportunity grants published

[[Page 5583]]

        by the Commissioner of Education during the prior fiscal year: 
        Provided further, That pursuant to section 411(b)(4)(A) of the 
        Higher Education Act, amounts appropriated herein for basic 
        opportunity grants which exceed the amounts required to meet 
        the payment schedule published for any fiscal year by 15 per 
        centum or less shall be carried forward and merged with amounts 
        appropriated the next fiscal year.

        Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. . . .
        . . . [D]uring the discussion of the rule on this bill, I asked 
    if there was money in this portion of the bill for the so-called 
    Middle Income Student Assistance Act. The distinguished chairman of 
    the subcommittee informed me that there indeed was money in the 
    bill for that act.
        I indicated at that time that the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act was not authorized. In fact, the House specifically 
    refused to consider that act and has subsequently passed the 
    Tuition Tax Credit Act. I was informed that was not necessary 
    because this could be done under current law.
        Mr. Chairman, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is not 
    current law. If the Middle Income Student Assistance Act is current 
    law, why did the President propose it as a new program?
        Mr. Chairman, the committee report says that this appropriation 
    is based on the House version of the Middle Income Student 
    Assistance Act and will expand student aid for middle income 
    students. It will not expand aid for middle income students without 
    increasing the middle income student limitation, and there is no 
    authorization for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the Middle Income 
    Student Assistance Act is or is not in existence and whether it is 
    or is not necessary, and I make the point of order that the $1.4 
    billion in this section that is for expanded aid to middle income 
    students is not authorized. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me 
    just point out that the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which 
    has not yet passed, simply gives direction and makes certain 
    changes in an already existing program. The bill before us today 
    funds programs which are in existing law, and the gentleman's point 
    of order is, therefore, not well taken.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman stated quite accurately that the report of the 
    committee on this appropriation bill indicated that the Middle 
    Income Student Assistance Act H.R. 11274 had not become law. It 
    also says, and I quote, on page 74:

            Even though this legislation is still pending, 
        appropriations can be made under existing authority to expand 
        student aid for middle income students, as expressed in the 
        bill and accompanying report.

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the report on H.R 
    11274 and the basic law. This is Public Law 94-482, 94th Congress, 
    the Education Amendment of 1976.
        Section 121, Part D, Student Assistance Basic Educational 
    Opportunity Grants, extends the authorizations of the basic act to 
    September 30, 1979.
        Considering all of the authorizations for fiscal 1979 under 
    part D--Student

[[Page 5584]]

    Assistance--together, it would appear that the funds in the 
    paragraph in question are authorized.
        Therefore, the Chair believes that the Committee is correct in 
    its view that there is extant authorization justifying this 
    appropriation, and he overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11274, the Middle Income Student 
Assistance Act, had been reported from the Committee on Education and 
Labor but had not passed the House. The report on that bill indicated 
that all of the five existing programs of student financial assistance 
which that bill would modify had been extended through fiscal 1979 by 
Public Law No. 94-482. The purpose of H.R. 11274 was merely to redirect 
emphasis toward assistance for middle income students, but not to 
provide new authorization.

Public Service Jobs--Earmarking

Sec. 20.18 Where existing law authorized appropriations for employment 
    of persons by public employers to provide public services, an 
    amendment appropriating funds for railroad maintenance employment 
    ``pursuant to contracts with railroads'' was held unauthorized 
    where its sponsor failed to cite specific authority for the 
    program.

    On Mar. 12, 1975,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4481 [the Emergency Employment 
Appropriation Act of 1975], a point of order was sustained against an 
amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 6338, 6339, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Page 
        7, line 6, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``; of which amount $250,000,000 shall be available 
        only for use by State and local prime sponsors to provide 
        emergency jobs for unemployed workers to perform needed 
        railroad maintenance of way services pursuant to contracts with 
        railroads located within the geographical jurisdiction of such 
        sponsors.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that there is no 
    authorization for this action and it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
    . . .
        Mr. Devine: . . . I recognized when this amendment would be 
    offered it might be construed as legislation on an appropriation 
    measure, but I have gone back to the act and I have looked at the 
    act. The purpose of the act we passed in 1946, the Employment Act, 
    was consistent with those needs and obligations and other essential 
    considerations of national policy for the purpose of creating and 
    maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free 
    competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under

[[Page 5585]]

    which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities--and I 
    repeat, useful employment opportunities. That is the purpose of the 
    act.
        What we are doing in this amendment is providing useful 
    employment opportunities--not leaf raking and not make work jobs, 
    but useful employment opportunities.
        The whole purpose of the bill is to provide funds for public 
    service jobs. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment, except 
    it earmarks that. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this does not 
    violate the rules and I think the point of order should be 
    overruled. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment specifies that this quarter billion dollars shall 
    be available for use only by State and local prime sponsors to 
    provide emergency jobs for unemployed workers to perform railroad 
    maintenance. The Chair has examined Public Law 93-567, and there is 
    no specific authorization for such purpose. The Chair finds that 
    the proposed amendment further changes the allocation formula 
    contained in Public Law 93-567, which is described on pages 34 and 
    35 of the report, and further interferes with the discretion given 
    the Secretary under section 603(b) of the public law as to the 
    utilization of the final 10 percent of the authorized amounts. In 
    chapter 26, section 6 of ``Deschler's Procedure,'' it provides very 
    clearly that there is ample precedent that such reallocations in 
    appropriation bills are legislation, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Officials' Representation Expenses

Sec. 20.19 A section of a general appropriation bill authorizing the 
    Secretaries of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare to use 
    funds in the bill for official reception and representation 
    expenses was conceded to be unauthorized and was ruled out in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 27, 1974,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 15580 (Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriations), a point of order was sustained 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 21686, 21687, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 404. The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare are each authorized to make 
        available not to exceed $7,500 from funds available for 
        salaries and expenses under titles I and II, respectively, for 
        official reception and representation expenses.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 37, beginning with 
    line 21 and running through line 25 as being appropriation not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: It is the entire 
    section 404?

[[Page 5586]]

        Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------