[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 14. District of Columbia]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5465-5484]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 14. District of Columbia

Office of Corporation Counsel

Sec. 14.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill for the District 
    of Columbia permitting the use of funds in the bill by the Office 
    of the Corporation Counsel to retain professional experts at rates 
    fixed by the commissioner

[[Page 5466]]

    was conceded to be legislation and was ruled out in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 18, 1973,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8685), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 11, lines 5 through 
    10, as not being a limitation upon an appropriation bill, and not 
    authorized.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            Sec. 5. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
        services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and shall be available 
        to the Office of the Corporation Counsel to retain the services 
        of consultants including physicians, diagnosticians, 
        therapists, engineers, and meteorologists at rates to be fixed 
        by the Commissioner.

        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Gross)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to say to the members of the Committee that this is a new 
    provision that is carried in the bill at this time. This was sent 
    up from downtown. We at this time, Mr. Chairman, concede the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade

Sec. 14.2 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for aid in 
    support of the Greater National Capital Committee of the 
    Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade was not authorized by law.

    On July 12, 1961,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8072), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 12404, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           General Operating Expenses

            General operating expenses, plus so much as may be 
        necessary to compensate the Engineer Commissioner at a rate 
        equal to each civilian member of the Board of Commissioners of 
        the District of Columbia, hereafter in this Act referred to as 
        the Commissioners; aid in the support of the Greater National 
        Capital Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Board of 
        Trade; $15,356,600. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 3, line 16, ``aid in the support 
    of the Greater National Capital Committee of the Metropolitan Board 
    of Trade.'' I make

[[Page 5467]]

    the point of order that the language is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan concedes the point of 
    order and the Chair sustains the point of order.

American Legion Convention Expenses

Sec. 14.3 To the District of Columbia appropriation bill, an amendment 
    making funds available for expenditure by the American Legion in 
    connection with its national convention was held not to be 
    authorized by law.

    On June 14, 1954,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9517. A point of order was raised against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 8190, 8191, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell. On page 4, line 1, strike out 
    ``$258,215'' and insert ``$283,215 of which $25,000 shall be 
    available for expenditure by the American Legion Convention 1954 
    Corporation in connection with the 1954 National Convention of the 
    American Legion, subject to reimbursement from the American Legion 
    if receipts exceed expenses.''
        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment inasmuch as the proposed 
    expenditure is not authorized by law and that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to make 
    inquiry of the gentleman from Arkansas if he can furnish the Chair 
    with an authorization covering the language in his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I frankly 
    say there is no authorization in law covering this item. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Upon the statement of the gentleman from Arkansas just made to 
    the Chair that there is no authorization for the amendment, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Schools

Sec. 14.4 An appropriation for public schools in the District of 
    Columbia was held not subject to the point of order that it was 
    without authorization, where the point of order was based on the 
    contention that funds were not authorized for segregated schools.

    On Mar. 2, 1949,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5468]]

ering H.R. 3082, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 1741, 1742, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 8, concerning 
    all appropriations for public schools, on the general ground that 
    there is no authorization. To be more specific, I mean the 
    following:
        The public schools in the District of Columbia are segregated 
    schools. Nowhere in the law is there any authorization for 
    appropriations for general administration, supervision, operation 
    of, and instruction in segregated schools. Since this section of 
    the bill makes appropriations for segregated schools, and since 
    there is no authorization in the law for segregated schools, I 
    submit that this is an appropriation without authorization and 
    these appropriations for segregated schools are not in order.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of [Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I cannot find 
    anything in this bill which provides that segregation must be 
    practiced in the District of Columbia. As a matter of fact, I look 
    on that as an administrative matter which is handled by the 
    superintendent of schools in the District of Columbia. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the appropriations provided in this section of the 
    bill are appropriations which are authorized by law; and since, in 
    the language of the bill before us, there is no reference to the 
    basis upon which the gentleman from New York has predicated his 
    point of order, the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

School Playgrounds

Sec. 14.5 An appropriation for expenses of keeping school playgrounds 
    open during the summer months was held authorized by law, and in 
    order.

     On Jan. 31, 1938,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point Chairman William J. Driver, of Arkansas, ruled on a 
point of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 1316, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. On page 26, beginning 
    on line 1, the following language appears in the pending bill:

            For the maintenance and contingent expenses of keeping open 
        during the summer months the public-school playgrounds; for 
        special and temporary services, directors, assistants, and 
        janitor service during the summer vacation, and, in the larger 
        yards, daily after school hours during the school term, 
        $25,000.

        To this paragraph the gentleman from Maryland addresses a point 
    of order upon the ground that there is no authority under the law 
    justifying the

[[Page 5469]]

    appropriation, and that it is an effort to change by law the 
    jurisdiction of the agency in charge of the particular activities 
    dealt with under this paragraph. The Chair must confess that he is 
    unable to find in this language any change whatever in the 
    jurisdiction over the property of the school institutions of the 
    District and the Chair must necessarily presume that any money 
    appropriated will go into the regular channels the law directs it 
    should follow and be expended by the agency charged under the law 
    with jurisdiction over these grounds. The Chair, therefore, is 
    compelled to reach the conclusion that the point of order is not 
    well taken, and it is therefore overruled.
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] also stresses the point 
    of order that is directed to the matter contained in the point 
    raised by the gentleman from Maryland, with this further point, 
    that there is no specific law authorizing an appropriation with 
    respect to the maintenance of the school grounds during the 
    vacation period. The Chair is compelled to reach the conclusion 
    that when jurisdiction is placed for the operation of these 
    institutions, necessarily the agency that is created and given 
    control over the institution continues it at all seasons of the 
    year and therefore the language that authorizes these institutions 
    necessarily is broad enough to cover every activity that the 
    language in this particular paragraph here indicates as the purpose 
    of the appropriation. Again, the Chair is compelled to overrule the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.

Claims of Prison Employees

Sec. 14.6 An amendment to the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing for refunds to certain individuals for meals not taken by 
    employees of a penal institution was held to be unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 3226, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Virginia: On page 31, line 
    22, after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``Refunding erroneous deductions: To enable the Commissioners 
    in cases where deductions were made for meals not taken by 
    employees in the penal institutions, Lorton, Va., and has been 
    covered into the Treasury for personal services: Provided, That 
    this appropriation shall be available for refunding to employees 
    such deductions made from salaries for meals not taken as follows, 
    not to exceed $1,040:
        ``Hospital Supervisor T. T. Grimsley, from November 1, 1938, 
    through April 30, 1945, at rate of $80 per annum, $560.
        ``Special Disbursing Agent Kenneth Dove, from July 1, 1939, 
    through June 30, 1945, at rate of $80 per annum, $480.'' . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is

[[Page 5470]]

    out of order because it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It 
    has to do with claims with reference to employees in a certain 
    institution operated by the District government and should properly 
    come from the Committee on Claims. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It would appear from the information already given to the 
    Committee by both the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman 
    from Washington that the authorization is nonexistent. Under those 
    circumstances it would seem the advisable course would be to file a 
    claim for this money to be refunded.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Street Lighting

Sec. 14.7 An appropriation for street lighting installation and 
    maintenance of public lamps and lampposts, out of the special fund 
    created by the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held in 
    order inasmuch as that act authorized appropriations for 
    improvement and maintenance of public highways and protective 
    structures in connection therewith.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point Chairman William J. Driver, of Arkansas, made the 
following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1375, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] offers an 
    amendment in the following language:

            Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and 
        maintenance of public lamps, lampposts, street designations, 
        lanterns, and fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, 
        alleys, and for all necessary expenses in connection therewith, 
        including rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, 
        maintenance, and repair of motor trucks, this sum to be 
        expended in accordance with the provisions of existing law: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        the payment of rates for electric street lighting in excess of 
        those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 1927, and 
        payment for electric current for new forms of street lighting 
        shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current 
        consumed.

        To this amendment the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] 
    directs a point of order on the ground it is not an appropriation 
    authorized under existing law. It, therefore, becomes necessary for 
    the Chair to look for authority in existing law to justify the 
    amendment.
        The law authorizing appropriation out of the gas-tax fund and 
    setting forth the purposes for which appropriations may be made is 
    found in volume 50, Part I, United States Statutes at Large, at 
    page 677, and is as follows:

            For the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and 
        maintenance

[[Page 5471]]

        of public highways, including the necessary administrative 
        expenses in connection therewith;
            (2) For the expenses of the office of the Director of 
        Vehicles and Traffic incident to the regulation and control of 
        traffic and the administration of the same, and
            (3) For the expenses necessarily involved in police 
        control, regulation, and administration of traffic upon the 
        highways. . . .

        The very language employed with respect to street lighting 
    necessarily leads us to the conclusion that street lighting is 
    regarded as an essential feature necessary in order to establish 
    such safeguards as would maintain these avenues and streets for the 
    benefit, the convenience, and the facility of the people using the 
    same.
        The language in the section of the law which the Chair read 
    that imposes a duty and responsibility upon the police force in 
    connection with these highways necessarily pre-supposes that 
    lighting is one of the necessary and essential features to the 
    safety element in the use of the streets and, therefore, is an 
    incident to and is necessarily included in the item of expense for 
    streets, street improvement, and maintenance.
        However, the Chair may say to the Committee that he is saved 
    considerable trouble and the necessity of dealing thoroughly with 
    this subject from the standpoint of reasoning by one of the 
    precedents of the House. A similar question to the one now under 
    consideration was raised during consideration of a District 
    appropriation bill in the first session of the Seventy-fifth 
    Congress, at which time the very distinguished gentleman from 
    Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] was Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union having under consideration that 
    measure. In a very sound opinion, which will be found on page 3111 
    of the Congressional Record of April 2, 1937, I find this language 
    was used by the then Chairman of the Committee:

            The Chair has pointed out in ruling on a previous point of 
        order that the so-called Gasoline Tax Act provides--
            ``That the proceeds of the tax, except as provided in 
        section 840 of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of 
        the United States entirely to the credit of the District of 
        Columbia and shall be available for appropriation by the 
        Congress exclusively for road and street improvement and 
        repair.''. . .
            The word ``improvement,'' defined to mean ``betterment,'' 
        makes the word broad and general enough to include all of the 
        various activities mentioned in this amendment. They are, 
        therefore, authorized by existing law. For this reason the 
        Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
        Mississippi is in order.
            The point of order is overruled.

        The Chair feels that the decision as made by the Chairman of 
    the Committee then . . . should be followed in construing the 
    present law.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the provision of law 
    pertaining to appropriations from the gas-tax fund is sufficiently 
    broad to authorize appropriations for the purposes set out in the 
    amendment and therefore overrules the point of order.

Airport Lighting

Sec. 14.8 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation

[[Page 5472]]

    bill appropriating for street lighting for ``public spaces'' and 
    ``part cost of maintenance of airport and airway lights necessary 
    for operation of the air mail'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point, a point of order was raised against the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and maintenance of 
    public lamps, lampposts, street designations, lanterns, and 
    fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, alleys, and 
    public spaces, part cost of maintenance of airport and airway 
    lights necessary for operation of the air mail, and for all 
    necessary expenses in connection therewith . . . $765,000. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order was directed at the paragraph beginning on page 68, line 21, 
    down to and inclusive of line 19 on page 69, for the reason that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, contrary to existing law, 
    and not authorized by law.

        In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I shall not argue this 
    point of order at great length at this juncture. It will suffice at 
    this time to point out to the Chair the language contained in lines 
    24 and 25 of page 68, and ask the Chair to remember that this 
    paragraph proposes to charge $765,000, the cost of street lighting 
    in the District of Columbia, to the highway fund of the District of 
    Columbia. Surely there can be no argument but that the following 
    language is legislation and not authorized by existing law:

            And public spaces, part cost of maintenance of airport and 
        airway lights necessary for operation of the air mail. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order is well taken. All of the paragraph 
    goes out, for if any part of the paragraph is subject to a point of 
    order necessarily the whole paragraph must be eliminated, which 
    will be the ruling in this particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juvenile Detention Center

 Sec.14.9 An appropriation for maintenance of a suitable place for the 
    reception and detention of girls and women, and of boys under 17 
    years of age, arrested by the police or held as witnesses in the 
    District of Columbia, was held authorized by law.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation for 1939. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 1359, 1360, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For maintenance of a suitable place for the reception and 
    detention of girls

[[Page 5473]]

    and women, and of boys under 17 years of age, arrested by the 
    police on charge of offense against any laws in force in the 
    District of Columbia, or held as witnesses or held pending final 
    investigation or examination, or otherwise, or committed to the 
    guardianship of the Board of Public Welfare, including 
    transportation, clinic supplies, food, clothing, upkeep and repair 
    of buildings, fuel, gas, ice, laundry, supplies and equipment, 
    electricity, and other necessary expenses, $18,500; for personal 
    services, $9,240; in all, $27,740. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert S.] Bigelow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the language beginning in line 19 on page 37, 
    and ending at the end of line 4 on page 38, is legislation in an 
    appropriation bill.
        In 1929, Public Law 804, Seventieth Congress, provided that 
    children picked up from the streets and held for disposition by the 
    courts should be separated from adult prisoners; and it provided a 
    receiving home of their own. Throughout all the years intervening 
    this receiving home has been maintained and is now in operation, 
    some 40 or 50 children being residents of the home, held there for 
    a period of a day, a week, or a month, or until they are otherwise 
    disposed of.
        Conditions at the receiving home admittedly are bad, and 
    something should be done about it; but what should be done is, it 
    seems to me, a matter for the consideration of the legislative 
    committee and not for an appropriations subcommittee. I, therefore, 
    make the point of order against the language in this section and 
    ask that the language be stricken from the bill.
        The Chairman: (19) does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order? And in this 
    connection the Chair will ask the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    indicate the authority for the appropriation to maintain the house 
    of detention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to know the grounds of the gentleman's point of order. The 
    house of detention is merely a police precinct.
        The Chairman: The gentleman interposes a point of order on the 
    ground that it is an appropriation without authority of law.
        Mr. Collins: The house of detention is a police precinct owned 
    by the District of Columbia.
        We may not have specific statutory authority to appropriate for 
    this particular precinct and, as a matter of fact, we may not have 
    specific statutory authority to appropriate for any particular 
    police precinct.
        The fact remains, however, that the house of detention has 
    existed since 1901 and appropriations have been made for that 
    purpose since that time. The section against which the point of 
    order is directed proposes appropriations for maintenance of an 
    existing institution. It is a going concern, and under the rule 
    laid down in section 1280 of Cannon's Precedents the Congress has 
    the power to appropriate for the maintenance thereof.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    should like to be heard on the point of order.
        As I understand it, the point of order is to the effect that 
    under the appro

[[Page 5474]]

    priation they are merging, under the act of 1929, as the gentleman 
    stated, the detention home for children into a prison. The children 
    will be placed in a prison.
        Merging the two is legislation in an appropriation bill and if 
    they are merging the two in violation of the act of 1929 then I say 
    the appropriation should be taken out. I think that is what my 
    colleague is contending.
        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    speak briefly on the point of order?
        The provision complained of here is not legislation in the 
    sense it creates some new activity which is required to be 
    authorized by law. Perhaps it expands one already created. This 
    activity, however, has been on the statute books and has been 
    appropriated for during the past 30 years or more.
        Mr. Bigelow: Mr. Chairman, I am not challenging the statement 
    that it may be proper for the Appropriations Committee to 
    appropriate funds for the repair of the detention home. But what 
    that committee is doing by this paragraph is abolishing the 
    receiving home for children. It is abolishing an institution that 
    was established by law for the purpose of segregating children from 
    adult prisoners and I submit it is clearly legislation. If the 
    point of order is sustained I have an amendment that will cure the 
    situation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        To the paragraph found on page 37 of the bill, beginning with 
    line 19, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bigelow] directs a point of 
    order on the ground it is legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    attempts to appropriate without legislative authority. The 
    gentleman from Ohio concedes the fact that there is authority under 
    the provisions of an act of 1929 and therefore this is an 
    appropriation based on the authority of that statute. The matter is 
    further clarified for the Chair by the gentleman from Maryland, who 
    states that his fear is the purpose of the paragraph is to 
    eliminate the use of certain quarters or to merge two of the 
    activities conducted with reference to matters dealt with in this 
    paragraph.
        There is nothing in the paragraph to indicate that there is the 
    purpose of either abandoning or merging and, of course, the Chair 
    is bound by the language and is unable to indulge in a presumption 
    that there is any such underlying purpose. Furthermore, the purpose 
    of this appropriation in express terms is maintenance, and by 
    maintenance I mean the maintenance of an existing institution or 
    institutions; therefore it would come clearly within the rules to 
    appropriate for that purpose.
        The point of order made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Bigelow] is overruled.

Personal Services for Public Buildings

Sec. 14.10 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    appropriating for personal services for the care of the District 
    buildings was held authorized by law and in order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5475]]

ering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 1939. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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: (1) The authority for making 
    appropriations for the care of District buildings is found in 
    Fiftieth Statutes at Large, page 377, in this language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Provided, That all buildings belonging to the District of 
        Columbia shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the 
        Commissioners of the District. . . .

        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.

Employment of People's Counsel

Sec. 14.11 Employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel before the 
    Public Utilities Commission, and employment of expert aid to such 
    counsel, were found to be authorized by law (though the amendment 
    in question was ruled out on other grounds).

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point the Clerk read the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 1308, 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On 
    page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs, as 
    follows:

        ``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel 
    before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
        ``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel, 
    $5,000.''. . .
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I made 
    a point of order against the language on

[[Page 5476]]

    page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to the end of the 
    paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the ground that it 
    was legislation in an appropriation bill. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Connecticut would restore the language that was 
    stricken out on the point of order; not only that, but we have 
    passed that particular section and the amendment comes too late. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (3) the gentleman from Maryland bases 
    his point of order on two grounds. The first ground, that the 
    amendment is not authorized by law, the Chair will be forced to 
    overrule, because in section 121 of the Public Utilities Act of the 
    District of Columbia under the District Code this language is 
    found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Commission shall have the power in each instance to 
        employ and to prescribe the duties of such officers, clerks, 
        stenographers, typewriters, inspectors, experts, and employees 
        as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
        act.

        The Chair finds, therefore, that the amendment does seek to 
    provide funds for a purpose authorized by law.
        The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that 
    the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.
        The Chair sustains the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane to the paragraph offered.

Main Library Building Unauthorized

Sec. 14.12 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and 
    specifications for a new main library building in the District of 
    Columbia was held unauthorized by law.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 1313, 1314, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the preparation of plans and specifications for a new main 
    library building to be constructed on square 491 in the District of 
    Columbia, $60,000.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language found on page 18, beginning in line 
    14, and including all of the language in lines 14, 15, and 16, 
    because it is legislation on an appropriation bill and is without 
    authority of existing law.
        I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose for making this point 
    of order is that there is now pending before the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia a bill which proposes to authorize an 
    appropriation of two and one-half million dollars for the 
    construction of a library in the District of Columbia. The 
    committee before which the bill is pending has had hearings in the 
    past

[[Page 5477]]

    and will no doubt hold hearings in the future in order to determine 
    whether or not there is a need in the District of Columbia for the 
    construction of this library building. Mr. Chairman, until that 
    committee does decide such a building is necessary, and until that 
    committee authorizes an appropriation for the construction of the 
    building, certainly there is no need for the expenditure of $60,000 
    to prepare the plans for a building, the authorization of which 
    could only be made by the District of Columbia Committee. I may say 
    there has been no authorization by the District of Columbia 
    Committee for an appropriation of $60,000 for this purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Nichols) is sustained, and accordingly 
    the provision will be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Branch Library Building Authorized

Sec. 14.13 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and 
    specifications for a branch library building in the District of 
    Columbia was held authorized by law.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. The following ruling was made by the Chairman: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 1314, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 7. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To a clause in the pending appropriation bill to be found 
    beginning on line 14 on page 18, in the following language--

            For the preparation of plans and specifications for a new 
        main library building to be constructed on square 491 in the 
        District of Columbia, $60,000--
    the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] directed a point of order 
    which was sustained by virtue of the language found in section 1421 
    of the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia, which provided for 
    the construction of a central library and branch libraries. The 
    word ``central'' as found in this particular law necessarily 
    precludes any legislation for the construction of another main 
    library, as we can well consider it to be the act and intent of 
    Congress to provide for such only in the form of one library. 
    Within this definition and direction of the law the Chair 
    necessarily sustained the point of order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi then offered an amendment which 
    provides for the preparation of plans and specifications for the 
    construction of a branch library. The Chair turns again to section 
    1421 of the code and finds this language:

            Said library shall consist of a central library and such 
        number of branch libraries so located and so supported as to 
        furnish books and other printed matter and information service 
        convenient to the homes and offices of all residents of the 
        said District.

        Clearly, this amendment, providing for the plans and 
    specifications for a branch library, comes squarely within the 
    authority of the law the Chair has

[[Page 5478]]

    just read and, therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Use of Gasoline Tax Fund--for Salaries

Sec. 14.14 An appropriation for the salary and expenses of the office 
    of Director of Vehicles and Traffic out of the District Gasoline 
    Tax Fund was held unauthorized by law, since the Gasoline Tax Act 
    provided that revenue raised through its operation could only be 
    appropriated by Congress for road and street improvements and 
    repairs.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(8) H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia 
appropriation for 1938, was being considered in the Committee of the 
Whole. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3110, 3111, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For paving, repaving, grading, and otherwise improving streets, 
    avenues, and roads, including temporary per-diem services, 
    surveying instruments and implements, and drawing materials, and 
    the maintenance of motor vehicles used in this work, including 
    curbing and gutters and replacement of curb-line trees where 
    necessary, and including trees and parkings, assessment and permit 
    work and the several purposes provided for in that paragraph, and 
    salaries and expenses of the office of the Director of Vehicles and 
    Traffic, as follows, to be paid from the special fund created by 
    section 1 of the act entitled ``An act to provide for a tax on 
    motor-vehicle fuels sold within the District of Columbia, and for 
    other purposes'', approved April 23, 1924 (43 Stat., p. 106), and 
    accretions by repayment of assessments.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the portion beginning in line 11 on page 71 
    after the word ``work'', and beginning with the word ``including,'' 
    going through lines 11, 12, and 13, on down to and inclusive of 
    line 21, on the ground that it is legislation and changes existing 
    law. . . .
        If there is any provision in the rules of the House which would 
    permit this language to stay in the bill as against the point of 
    order, that it is legislation, it would have to be held under the 
    provisions of the Holman rule. . . .
        The organic law which provided for the expenditure of funds 
    derived from the collection of the gasoline tax in the District of 
    Columbia, stating where those funds might be expended, reads as 
    follows:

            A tax of 2 cents per gallon on all motor-vehicle fuels 
        within the District of Columbia sold or otherwise disposed of 
        by an importer or used by him in a motor vehicle operated for 
        hire or for commercial purposes, shall be levied, collected, 
        and paid in the manner hereinafter provided.

        I ask the Chair to listen carefully to the reading of the 
    following portion of the law:

            The proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 840 
        of this title--

        And for the benefit of the Chair let me say that section 840 of 
    this title

[[Page 5479]]

    simply provides certain exemptions of certain classes of motor 
    vehicles from the provisions of this tax law--
        shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States entirely 
        to the credit of the District of Columbia, and shall be 
        available for appropriation by the Congress exclusively for 
        road and street improvements and repair.

        In Hinds' Precedents, volume 7, page 411, section 1395, this is 
    stated:

            A provision construing or interpreting existing law is 
        legislation and is not in order on an appropriation bill.

        And there follows the ruling where a similar objection to this 
    was made, and it was sustained. My point is this: In answer to this 
    point of order the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations 
    can only say, I believe, that this language is justified because 
    curbs, gutters, parkways, streets, motor vehicles, and other things 
    related thereto are parts of a street and a roadway. If that is the 
    contention, then that is an attempt on the part of this 
    subcommittee to do the thing that section 1394 says cannot be done, 
    to wit:

            A provision construing or interpreting existing law is 
        legislation not in order on an appropriation bill.

        In other words, if the District of Columbia up to this time has 
    been using these funds only for a particular purpose, that is an 
    administrative discretion of theirs and this rule provides that if 
    an Appropriations Committee attempts to direct that executive 
    officer that he must use the funds for some other purpose than that 
    for which he is using it, that that is legislation, and I submit, 
    Mr. Chairman, that this under that rule is clearly legislation. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the law 
    merely says that the gasoline-tax fund shall be available for road 
    and street improvement and repair. Trees are just as much a part of 
    the street as the center of the street. Assessment and curbing work 
    simply means the paving of sidewalks and gutters. Certainly 
    operation and maintenance of traffic lights is a part of street 
    improvements. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: [Clearly] this is legislation, because that thing 
    cannot be done by an appropriations committee. I will read from 
    volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents, at page 444, section 1438, as 
    follows:

            A provision limiting discretion vested in an executive 
        officer is legislation and not in order on an appropriation 
        bill.

        Which goes back to the very thing I stated before. If these 
    gentlemen whose duty it is to spend the funds derived from this 
    gasoline tax are not spending it for the things provided for here, 
    then if you direct them what they shall spend the money for, that 
    makes it legislation, beyond question. Under the admission of the 
    chairman of the subcommittee, certainly it cannot be construed as 
    anything else.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] makes a point of order 
    against certain language appearing on page 71, beginning with the 
    word ``including'', in line 11, and extending to the end of the 
    paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] in speaking in 
    opposition to

[[Page 5480]]

    the point of order, has called attention to certain improvements 
    that are provided for by the language included in this part of the 
    bill. The Chair would be inclined to agree with the gentleman in 
    the contention that he presents in all respects except that 
    relating to the question of salaries and expenses of the office of 
    director of vehicles and traffic. The Chair observes that the 
    office of director of vehicles and traffic is provided for in the 
    act to regulate traffic in the District of Columbia, and so forth. 
    An examination of this law clearly shows that the director of 
    vehicles and traffic has rather broad general duties to perform, 
    and it is not related alone to what might be imposed upon him in 
    connection with the Gasoline Tax Act. The Gasoline Tax Act 
    provides, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Oklahoma, that--

            The proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 840 
        of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United 
        States entirely to the credit of the District of Columbia and 
        shall be available for appropriations by the Congress 
        exclusively for road and street improvements and repairs.

        The Chair is unable to see how that language would be broad 
    enough to authorize the payment of salaries for the director of 
    vehicles and traffic. The Gasoline Tax Act does not make provision 
    for the payment of the salaries to which the Chair has directed 
    attention. Therefore, salaries paid out of this fund would not be 
    authorized by law. For that reason the provision to which the point 
    of order is made would, in the opinion of the Chair, be legislation 
    on a general appropriation bill and would be subject to a point of 
    order
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order

-- For Street Repair and Improvement

Sec. 14.15 An appropriation for paving, grading, and otherwise 
    improving streets, including curbing and gutters, and replacement 
    of curb-line trees where necessary, out of the special fund created 
    by the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held to be in 
    order inasmuch as that act authorized appropriations for ``road and 
    street improvement and repair.''

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (10) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1938. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3111, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 71, line 7, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``For paving, repaving, grading, and otherwise improving 
    streets, avenues, and roads, including temporary per-diem services, 
    surveying instruments and implements, and drawing materials, and 
    the maintenance of motor vehicles used in this work, including 
    curbing and gutters and replacement of curb-line trees where 
    necessary, and

[[Page 5481]]

    including trees and parkings, assessment and permit work and the 
    several purposes provided for in that paragraph, as follows, to be 
    paid from the special fund created by section 1 of the act entitled 
    `An act to provide for a tax on motor-vehicle fuels sold within the 
    District of Columbia, and for other purposes', approved April 23, 
    1924 (43 Stat., p. 106), and accretions by repayment of 
    assessments.''
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . . If I properly interpret the 
    amendment, it is the exact language that was heretofore in the 
    bill, with the exception that that portion has been stricken which 
    provides for the payment of the salary of a supervisor of traffic 
    Am I correct in that understanding?
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point of order against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, the 
    wording of which, as pointed out by the gentleman from Oklahoma, is 
    the same as the wording of the bill excluding the portion to which 
    the Chair invited attention in the ruling made on the previous 
    point of order. It will be remembered that the Chair pointed out in 
    ruling on the previous point of order that the so-called Gasoline 
    Tax Act provides:

            That the proceeds of the tax, except as provided in section 
        840 of this title, shall be paid into the Treasury of the 
        United States entirely to the credit of the District of 
        Columbia and shall be available for appropriation by the 
        Congress exclusively for road and street improvement and 
        repair.

        The Chair has consulted the dictionary and finds that the word 
    ``improvement'' is there defined to be--

            An act or process of improving, as profitable employment or 
        use, cultivation, development, enhancement, or increase; 
        especially betterment--

        And so forth. The word ``improvement'' appears in the so-called 
    Gasoline Tax Act, and this word is defined in the dictionary as 
    meaning, among other things, ``especially betterment.'' The Chair, 
    therefore, is of the opinion that the various functions mentioned 
    in the language of the amendment and the various things to be 
    provided--trees, parking, curbing, guttering, and so forth--
    certainly are proper to be included as betterment or improvement of 
    the streets.
        The word ``improvement'', defined to mean ``betterment'', makes 
    the word broad and general enough to include all of the various 
    activities mentioned in this amendment. They are, therefore, 
    authorized by existing law. For this reason the Chair feels that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is in 
    order.
        The point of order is overruled.

-- For Personal Services

Sec. 14.16 An appropriation for personal services for the Department of 
    Vehicles and Traffic, out of the special fund created by the 
    District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held not to be 
    authorized by the act

[[Page 5482]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against the following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
    $76,440.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I interpose a 
    point of order against the language appearing in line 13, page 80, 
    reading as follows:

            For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
        $76,440.

        That this is legislation and contrary to existing law.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: I do not.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point of 
    order against the language appearing in lines 13 and 14, on page 
    80, which reads as follows:
        ``For personal services, department of vehicles and traffic, 
    $76,440.''
        It will be remembered that on page 71 of the bill a point of 
    order was made against language appearing in lines 15 and 
    16.(14) For the reasons indicated at the time that point 
    of order was under consideration, the Chair is of opinion that this 
    is an appropriation not authorized by law and therefore sustains 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the discussion in Sec. 14.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- For Sidewalks and Curbing

Sec. 14.17 An appropriation for the construction and repair of 
    sidewalks and curbs around public reservations and municipal and 
    federal buildings, out of a special fund created by the District of 
    Columbia Gasoline Tax Act, was held to be authorized by the 
    language of that act specifying in general terms the purposes of 
    the fund.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1938. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order to the language in line 22, page 79, after the comma, as 
    follows:

            And construction and repair of sidewalks and curbs around 
        public reservations and municipal and United States buildings, 
        including purchase or condemnation of streets, roads, and 
        alleys, and of areas less than 250 square feet at the 
        intersection of streets, avenues, or roads in the District of 
        Columbia, to be selected by the Commissioners, and including 
        maintenance of non-pas

[[Page 5483]]

        senger-carrying motor vehicles, $150,000

        Mr. Chairman, there might be a portion of that language which 
    may conform to existing law, but I make the point of order because 
    it is legislation and does not conform to existing law. Certainly 
    that portion which provides for the construction of sidewalks 
    around public reservations and municipal and United States 
    buildings cannot be according to existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order to the language beginning in line 22, page 79, 
    down to and including line 4, on page 80
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had occasion in several instances during the 
    course of the consideration of this bill to invite attention to the 
    so-called Gas Tax Act and the provisions therein relating to the 
    improvement and betterment of the streets and roads. The Chair 
    feels for the reasons heretofore stated in passing upon several 
    other points of order very similar in application to the pending 
    question that these improvements, such as paving, sidewalk 
    improvement, and all of those various activities, come within the 
    scope of this act to which reference has been made; therefore these 
    activities are authorized by existing law, and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

-- For Motor Vehicles Licenses

Sec. 14.18 An appropriation for the purchase of motor vehicle 
    identification plates out of the special fund created by the 
    District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act was held not to be authorized 
    by the act.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5996, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3112, 3113, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purchase of motor-vehicle identification number plates, 
    $20,000.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    interpose a point of order against the language beginning in line 
    16, page 81, ``For the purchase of motor-vehicle identification 
    number plates, $20,000'', for the reason it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, which is contrary to the rules of the House. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order against the language appearing in lines 16 and 17 
    on page 81. The Chair is of the opinion the so-called Gas Tax Act, 
    to which reference has been made on several occasions during the 
    consideration of this bill, does not authorize appropriation out of 
    that fund to provide for these identification plates, and so forth. 
    The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purchase of Municipal Asphalt Plant.

Sec. 14.19 Language in the District of Columbia appropria

[[Page 5484]]

    tion bill authorizing the Commissioners to purchase a municipal 
    asphalt plant for which no authorization was cited was ruled out as 
    unauthorized and not in order on a general appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, 
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3111, 3112, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For current work of repairs to streets, avenues, roads, and 
        alleys, including the reconditioning of existing gravel streets 
        and roads; for cleaning snow and ice from streets, sidewalks, 
        cross walks, and gutters in the discretion of the 
        Commissioners; and including the purchase, exchange, 
        maintenance, and operation of non-passenger-carrying motor 
        vehicles used in this work, $800,000: Provided, That the 
        Commissioners of the District of Columbia, should they deem 
        such action to be to the advantage of the District of Columbia, 
        are hereby authorized to purchase a municipal asphalt plant at 
        a cost not to exceed $30,000: Provided further, That 
        appropriations contained in this act for highways, sewers, city 
        refuse, and the water department shall be available for snow 
        removal when specifically and in writing ordered by the 
        Commissioners.

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the paragraph on page 77, beginning in line 9 
    after the semicolon, the following language:

            And including the purchase, exchange, maintenance, and 
        operation of non-passenger-carrying motor vehicles used in this 
        work, $800,000.

        I might make this in sections, Mr. Chairman, but I will make it 
    all at once. I make a point of order against the following language 
    on page 77, line 11:

            Provided, That the Commissioners of the District of 
        Columbia, should they deem such action to be to the advantage 
        of the District of Columbia, are hereby authorized to purchase 
        a municipal asphalt plant at a cost not to exceed $30,000: 
        Provided further, that appropriations contained in this act for 
        highways, sewers, city refuse, and the water department shall 
        be available for snow removal when specifically and in writing 
        ordered by the Commissioners.

        I make a point of order against these provisions on the ground 
    that they are legislation and change existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) While the Chair is constrained to 
    agree with many of the observations made by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, yet the Chair is of the opinion that the inclusion of 
    the words in lines 14 and 15, as follows: ``and hereby authorized 
    to purchase a municipal asphalt plant'', and so forth, together 
    with the failure to point out to the Chair the provision of 
    existing law authorizing such an activity, makes this legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5485]]