[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 42. District of Columbia]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5917-5922]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 42. District of Columbia

Office of Corporation Counsel; Salary Rates Fixed by Commissioner

Sec. 42.1 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 was conceded to be legislation and was 
    ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 18, 1973,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of

[[Page 5918]]

the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill (H.R. 8685), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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: (1) Does the gentleman from Kentucky 
    desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Gross)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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.

Mandating Equal Expenditure for all Races

Sec. 42.2 A proposed amendment to the District of Columbia 
    appropriation bill providing that ``whenever . . . it is proposed 
    to expend any sum for any thing or service from the benefit of 
    which members of any race are excluded an equal sum shall be 
    expended . . . for the benefit . . . of the race so excluded'' was 
    held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(2) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 3222, 3232, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: On 
    page 55, after line 5, insert a new section as follows:
        ``3. Whenever under this bill it is proposed to expend any sum 
    for any thing or service from the benefit of which members of any 
    race are excluded, an equal sum shall be expended for things and 
    services for the benefit of the members of the race so excluded and 
    in proportion to the percent of the population the members of the 
    excluded race bear to the whole population of the municipality 
    where the proposed expenditure is to be made.''
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I renew the 
    point of order. I make the point of

[[Page 5919]]

    order the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    requiring affirmative action by District officials.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill now being considered contains no provision for equal 
    appropriations and there is no authorization to make equal 
    appropriations.
        The Chair therefore feels that it is very clearly legislation, 
    and sustains the point of order.

Conferring Discretionary Method of Expenditure

Sec. 42.3 Language in a general appropriation bill making funds 
    available for the District of Columbia Civil War Centennial 
    Commission for expenses ``by contract or otherwise, as determined 
    by the Commissioners'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
12740), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         District of Columbia Funds

                             Operating Expenses

                              Executive Office

        For an additional amount for ``Executive Office'', including 
    expenses of the District of Columbia Civil War Centennial 
    Commission and the National Capital Downtown Committee, 
    Incorporated, by contract or otherwise, as may be determined by the 
    Commissioners, $47,700.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order.

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language appearing on page 3, beginning with line 14 through line 
    21, as being legislation on an appropriation bill, with particular 
    reference to the language in line 20 which reads as follows: ``by 
    contract or otherwise, as may be determined by the Commissioners.''
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thomas) care 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas: Mr. Chairman, this is in the normal course 
    of their duties, and I doubt if the point of order is good.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        After examining the language referred to by the gentleman from 
    Iowa, it appears to the Chair that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, subject to a point of order; therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Setting Maximum Hospital Rates for Treatment of Indigent Patients

Sec. 42.4 Language in a general appropriation bill author

[[Page 5920]]

    izing the treatment of indigent patients in hospitals in the 
    District of Columbia, and setting maximum rates to be charged for 
    such treatment, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    On June 26, 1962, (6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12276), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 11731, 11732, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the following language beginning in line 24 on page 
    6, and ending in line 2 on page 7: ``and for care and treatment of 
    indigent patients in institutions, including those under sectarian 
    control, under contracts to be made by the Director of Public 
    health;''.
        And the following language beginning in line 2 of page 7 and 
    ending in line 9 of page 7:

            Provided, That the outpatient rate under such contracts and 
        for services rendered by Freedmen's Hospital shall not exceed 
        $5 per visit and the inpatient rate shall not exceed rates 
        established by the Commissioners based on audited costs, and 
        such contract rates and rates for services rendered by 
        Freedmen's Hospital shall not exceed comparable costs at the 
        District of Columbia General Hospital.

        Leaving in on line 2 of page 7 the dollar sign and figures: 
    ``$66,528,000:''.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language I 
    seek to have stricken is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . 
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    discussed this matter with my distinguished colleague, the ranking 
    minority member [Mr. Rhodes]. As pointed out to the Committee a few 
    moments ago, this is a feature that has been carried in the 
    District of Columbia appropriation bill for a great number of 
    years; a provision that the members of the subcommittee do not 
    favor. I believe, also, that this matter can be worked out after 
    the bill goes to the other body, and in the conference report we 
    can work out a provision that will not only meet with the approval 
    of the committee but also, I think, with that of the distinguished 
    gentleman from Iowa.
        We concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The point of order is conceded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granting Commissioners Authority to Supervise, Control, and Operate 
    Building in District of Columbia

Sec. 42.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    placing under the commissioners the supervision, control, and 
    operation of the Police Court Building was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5921]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (8) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3109, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For completing construction of a building in Judiciary Square 
    to house the Police Court of the District of Columbia, including 
    furniture and equipment, and inspection, $450,000, and the 
    supervision, control, and operation of said building shall be under 
    the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, who are authorized 
    to assign surplus space in said building to other activities of the 
    municipal government.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against that portion of the last paragraph on page 49 
    beginning after the word ``control'', in line 20, which reads, 
    ``and operation of said building shall be under the Commissioners 
    of the District of Columbia, who are authorized to assign surplus 
    space in said building to other activities of the municipal 
    government'' for the reason it is legislation and changes the 
    provisions of existing law.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Nichols: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: Why does not the gentleman include in his point 
    of order the words ``and the supervision, control, and operation'', 
    beginning on line 20? In other words, all after the figure 
    ``$450,000.''
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
    observation. I modify my point of order to include the language 
    beginning in line 20 referred to by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: No, Mr. Chairman. I do 
    not know what we are going to do with the available space there, 
    but it is, perhaps, all right.
        Mr. Nichols: May I state to the gentleman the custodians of the 
    particular buildings will assign the space in the orderly manner as 
    they have always done.
        The Chairman: Patently, the language referred to is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Explicit Change in Lawful Policy; Restrictions on Newspaper 
    Advertisements

Sec. 42.6 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that an appropriation shall not be available for costs of 
    advertisements in newspapers published outside the District of 
    Columbia ``notwithstanding the requirement for such advertising 
    provided by existing law'' was held not in order on a general 
    appropriation bill.

[[Page 5922]]

    On Apr. 2, 1937, (10) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3105, 3106, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general advertising, authorized and required by law, 
        and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in 
        regulations, $7,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
        not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers 
        published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding 
        the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law.

        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the proviso beginning on line 11, page 13:

            Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available 
        for the payment of advertising in newspapers published outside 
        of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the requirement 
        for such advertising provided by existing law.

        I make the point of order that is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the law 
    provides that all purchases over $1,000 shall be advertised in 
    newspapers outside the District of Columbia. The purpose of this 
    amendment is to save the District a little money, and if the 
    gentleman from Maryland does not want to do that, it suits me.
        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, it is not that the gentleman from 
    Maryland does not want to save the District any money. This is a 
    question of whether or not we are going to permit the Committee on 
    Appropriations to come in here and change laws that are now on the 
    statute books. If we are going to permit that in the case of the 
    District of Columbia, we might as well wipe out all legislative 
    committees in this House. That is the question involved.

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair inquires of the 
    gentleman from Maryland whether his point of order is made to the 
    proviso, beginning on line 11 and extending through line 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Palmisano: It is.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is of 
    opinion that especially the last part of the proviso, beginning 
    with the word ``notwithstanding'' clearly waives the provisions of 
    existing law, and therefore changes existing law and would be 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill, which is prohibited by 
    the rules of the House. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.