[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[E. Provisions as Changing Existing Law; Provisions Affecting Executive Authority; Imposition of New Duties on Officials]
[Â§ 60. District of Columbia]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6213-6218]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 60. District of Columbia

Limiting Duties of Teachers, Not Funds

Sec. 60.1 A provision in a District of Columbia appropriation bill that 
    teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that necessary 
    or incidental to their regular classroom teaching assignments was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering provisions of H.R. 5996, relating to appropriations for 
personal services of teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3106, 3107, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services of teachers and librarians in accordance 
    with the act approved June 4, 1924 (43 Stat., pp. 367-375) . . . 
    $7,157,820: Provided, That as teacher vacancies occur during the 
    fiscal year 1938 in grades 1 to 4, inclusive, of the elementary 
    schools, such vacancies may be filled by the assignment of teachers 
    now employed in kindergartens . . . : Provided further, That 
    teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that which is 
    necessary or incidental to their regular classroom teaching 
    assignments. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language contained on page 25, beginning in 
    line 4, as follows--

            That teachers shall not perform any clerical work except 
        that which is necessary or incidental to their regular 
        classroom teaching assignments--
    for the reason that it is legislation and modifies existing law. . 
    . .

        The Chairman: (9) Patently this is legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill, and there is no saving or retrenchment 
    shown. Therefore, it being legislation, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6214]]

Directing Water Supply Treatment in District of Columbia

Sec. 60.2 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall provide for 
    treating the water supply of the District of Columbia with a 
    fluoride for dental protection was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On June 7, 1951,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4329), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 6271, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Page 17, line 
        12, after the period, insert ``Provided further, That the Board 
        of Commissioners shall provide for treating the water supply of 
        the District of Columbia with a flouride or chemical compound 
        to the extent that it will provide dental protection for the 
        people of the District of Columbia.''

        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I concede the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Nebraska 
    concedes the point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Authority Conferred on Federal Official

Sec. 60.3 An amendment in the form of a limitation providing that no 
    part of an appropriation be used for the purchase or sale of real 
    estate or for establishing new offices outside the District of 
    Columbia, except that in an emergency, when Congress is not in 
    session, approval may be given therefor by the Director of the 
    Budget, was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Apr. 14, 1949,(12) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4177), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 4657, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in behalf of the committee.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6215]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 63, 
        line 3, insert a new section in lieu thereof, as follows:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of any appropriations made available by 
        the provisions of this title shall be used for the purchase or 
        sale of real estate or for the purpose of establishing new 
        offices outside the District of Columbia: Provided, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to programs which have been approved 
        by the Congress and appropriations made therefor: Provided 
        further, That in the event of an emergency, when the Congress 
        is not in session, approval may be given by the Director of the 
        Bureau of the Budget, within the limits of available funds.''

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that that 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill, the latter part of the 
    amendment giving additional power and responsibility to the 
    Director of the Budget.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from South 
    Dakota desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Travel

Sec. 60.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing that, ``when 
    specifically authorized by the Commissioners this appropriation may 
    be used for visiting any ward of the Department of Public Welfare 
    placed outside of the District of Columbia and the States of 
    Virginia and Maryland'' was conceded and held to require additional 
    duties and not to be in order.

    On Apr. 8, 1957,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6500), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5293, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 Public Welfare

            Department of Public Welfare, including relief and 
        rehabilitation of indigent residents, maintenance pending 
        transportation of indigent persons, burial of indigent 
        residents of the District of Columbia, temporary care of 
        children while being transferred from place to place . . . and 
        care of boys committed to the National Training School for Boys 
        by the courts of the District of Columbia under a contract to 
        be made by the Commissioners or their designated agent with the 
        Attorney General at a rate of not to exceed the actual cost for 
        each boy committed, $12,450,000: Provided, That when 
        specifically authorized by the Commissioners this appropriation 
        may be used for visiting any ward of the Department of Public 
        Welfare placed outside of the District of Columbia and the 
        States of Virginia and Maryland. . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.

[[Page 6216]]

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: My point of order is with reference to the 
    language on page 16, line 9, beginning with the word ``Provided'' 
    down to and including the word ``Maryland'' on line 13. That is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill in that it requires additional 
    duties of the Commissioners and also is unlimited as to amount. It 
    may be used in visiting any ward of the Department of Public 
    Welfare anywhere in the United States. The language says outside 
    the District of Columbia and the States of Virginia and Maryland. 
    That would permit them to travel anywhere.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rabaut) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, this language has been 
    carried in the bill for probably 4 years. The language itself 
    indicates its purpose. If the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, I will have to concede the point of order.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, of course I insist on the point of 
    order; otherwise I would not have made it.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Restriction on Obligational Authority

Sec. 60.5 Language in a supplemental appropriation bill providing for 
    ``such sums as may be necessary'' for public buildings projects in 
    the District of Columbia and further specifying that ``no 
    obligation shall be incurred for any . . . project . . . which will 
    (1) result in a deficit in the general fund of the District of 
    Columbia, or (2) exceed the estimated cost as submitted therein to 
    the Congress'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 23, 1960,(16) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 14086, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Capital Outlay, Public Building Construction and Department of 
                            Sanitary Engineering

        For an additional amount for ``Capital outlay, Public Building 
    Construction'' and ``Capital outlay, Department of Sanitary 
    Engineering'', for construction projects as authorized by the Act 
    of April 22, 1904 (33 Stat. 244), the Act of May 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 
    105), and the Act of June 6, 1958 (72 Stat. 183) and as submitted 
    to the Congress in House Document Numbered 403 of June 1, 1960, 
    such sums as may be necessary, but no obligation shall be incurred 
    for any item or project proposed in said document which will (1) 
    result in a deficit in the general fund of the District of 
    Columbia, or (2) exceed the esti

[[Page 6217]]

    mated cost as submitted therein to the Congress.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 5, beginning with line 
    3 and running through line 16. I refer especially to the following 
    language:

            But no obligation shall be incurred for any item or project 
        proposed in said document which will (1) result in a deficit in 
        the general fund of the District of Columbia, or (2) exceed the 
        estimated cost as submitted therein to the Congress.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is subject to other 
    considerations.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, it certainly was 
    the intention of the committee, and we think the language is clear, 
    to put a straight limitation on the use of these funds.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against certain 
    language on page 5. The Chair has had an opportunity to study this 
    language, and finds that there is no question but what this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Therefore the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Imposing New Employment Quotas

Sec. 60.6 An amendment providing that no funds appropriated in the act 
    shall be available for the appointment of persons to non-civil-
    service positions in excess of certain quotas applicable by law 
    only to appointments to classified positions was held to be 
    legislation and not a limitation.

    On Mar. 28, 1940,(18) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill [H.R. 9007), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 3632, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 702. No funds appropriated in this act shall be 
        available for the appointment of persons to non-civil-service 
        positions in the departmental service in the District of 
        Columbia unless such appointment is not in excess of the quota 
        of apportionment, established in the manner provided by the 
        civil-service laws for appointment in the classified civil 
        service, for positions (compensated by the funds in the 
        respective titles of this act) of a non-civil-service 
        character: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any 
        position, the appointment of which is made by the President.

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the section on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    aware, of

[[Page 6218]]

    course, that a point of order would be made. I am of the opinion 
    that the language in the section is clearly a limitation on the 
    appropriation and comes within the spirit of the Holman rule. I am 
    advised, however, that the Parliamentarian maintains other views, 
    and for this reason I shall not resist the sustaining of the point 
    of order although I desire to offer amendatory language to take the 
    place of the stricken section.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the language in lines 14 and 15, ``unless such appointment 
    is not in excess of the quota of apportionment,'' and so forth, is 
    clearly subject to a point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Employment at Rates to be Set by Corporation Counsel

Sec. 60.7 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 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.

[[Page 6219]]