[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 78. Veterans' Administration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6489-6491]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 78. Veterans' Administration

Service-connected Dental Assistance

Sec. Sec. 78.1 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no 
    part of an appropriation for the Veterans' Administration shall be 
    available for dental treatment, under specified conditions, was 
    held in order as a limitation.

    On Mar. 31, 1954,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against an amendment and overruled as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 4262, 4263, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: On 
    page 47, line 11, after ``$76,744,000'', insert ``Provided, That no 
    part of this appropriation shall be available for outpatient dental 
    services and treatment, or related dental appliances with respect 
    to a service-connected dental disability which is not compensable 
    in degree where such condition or disability is not shown to have 
    been in existence at time of discharge and application for 
    treatment is made within 1 year after discharge or by July 27, 
    1954, whichever is later.
        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; furthermore, that it changes existing law.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: This is strictly a limitation under the rules. It 
    saves money.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter of opinion. 
    Furthermore, might I say that even if it were not a limitation on 
    an appropriation, it imposes additional duties.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that it is a 
    limitation. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Medical Care for Nonveterans

Sec. 78.2 An amendment providing that ``no part of this appropriation 
    can be used for hospitalization or examination of persons other 
    than veterans, unless a reciprocal schedule of pay is in effect 
    with the agency or department involved'' was held to be a proper 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order on a 
    general appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 18, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation. An amend

[[Page 6490]]

ment was offered and a point of order against it was overruled as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 509-11, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of 
    Pennsylvania]: On page 77, line 6, after the period, insert: 
    ``Provided further, That no part of this appropriation can be used 
    for hospitalization or examination of persons other than veterans, 
    unless a reciprocal schedule of pay is in effect with the agency or 
    department involved.''
        [Mr. James M. Fitzpatrick, of New York, reserved a point of 
    order.]
        Mr. Van Zandt: During the general debate on this bill, I called 
    to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] the 
    fact that the employees of several Federal agencies, including the 
    Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, the 
    Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, and the 
    Unemployment Compensation Commission, also beneficiaries of the 
    Railroad Retirement Board, are being examined by the medical staffs 
    of the Veterans' Administration facilities scattered throughout the 
    country. In many cases the employees of these Federal agencies are 
    hospitalized and spend many weeks in veterans' facilities. I 
    further pointed out at that time that all of the agencies referred 
    to reimburse the Veterans' Administration at the rate of $3.75 a 
    day for each person receiving medical service, with the exception 
    of the Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, and 
    the Unemployment Compensation Commission. These three agencies 
    enjoy a special privilege that is charged to the expenses chalked 
    up for the veterans of our wars. Since that discussion of this 
    subject on the floor of this House, I have made special inquiry 
    into this entire matter and I find that the position I took at that 
    time was sound and correct in every detail.
        [The point of order having been made, the ruling thereon was as 
    follows:]
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from New York has 
    made a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is in the nature 
    of a limitation, and therefore, overrules the point of order.

Area and Regional Offices

Sec. 78.3 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``no part of 
    this appropriation [for the Veterans' Administration] may be used 
    for expenses of any area medical or regional representative 
    offices'' was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On May 11, 1965,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7997, an independent offices appropriation bill. A 
point of order against the following provision in the bill was 
overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 10168, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for administration of the medical, 
    hospital, domi

[[Page 6491]]

    ciliary, construction and supply, research, employee education and 
    training activities, as authorized by law, $12,596,000: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation may be used for expenses of any 
    area medical or regional representative offices.
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 40, line 8, beginning 
    with the word ``Provided'' through line 10, as being legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, that is purely a 
    limitation on the use of funds. We cannot admit that point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: . . . The language is clearly a limitation on the 
    use of funds. The point of order is overruled.