[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 68. Civil Liberties]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6379-6397]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 68. Civil Liberties

Segregation by Race, Color, Creed; Limitation on Funds

Sec. 68.1 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropria

[[Page 6380]]

    tion bill providing that no part of the money contained in the act 
    shall be used for any agency, office, or department of the District 
    of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District in 
    employment, facilities afforded, services performed, accommodations 
    furnished, instructions, or aid granted, on account of the race, 
    color, creed, or place of national origin of the citizens of the 
    District was held a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. This precedent was 
        followed in later rulings: see Sec. 68.2, infra, for the ruling 
        of Apr. 19, 1950, and see 95 Cong. Rec. 1743, 1744, 81st Cong. 
        1st Sess., for the Mar. 2, 1949, ruling on identical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    In line 7, page 2, insert the following: ``Provided, That no part 
    of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used for any of 
    the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, office, or department 
    of the District of Columbia which segregates the citizens of the 
    District of Columbia in employment, facilities afforded, services 
    performed, accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted, 
    on account of the race, color, creed, or place of national origin 
    of the citizens of the District of Columbia.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, and that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in that it attempts to change the fundamental 
    laws of the District of Columbia that have been established and in 
    effect for at least 80 years or probably a hundred years.
        This amendment, if adopted, would destroy the school system of 
    the District of Columbia. It would stir up race hatred and bring 
    about race trouble, the like of which nothing else has ever done in 
    all the history of the District. If it is done, the effect will be 
    to destroy the legislation providing funds with which to carry on 
    the public schools in the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The gentleman is not addressing himself to the point of 
    order but is addressing himself to the merits of the legislation.
        Mr. Rankin: I am not surprised that the gentleman from New York 
    does not understand me when I am talking to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will address himself to the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: It is very difficult to understand the 
    gentleman when he is talking propaganda.

[[Page 6381]]

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am developing the point that if 
    this amendment is adopted it will destroy the school system of the 
    District.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will talk strictly to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Rankin: That is what I am doing now.
        It is legislation on an appropriation bill designed to destroy 
    the school system of the District of Columbia for which we are 
    required to appropriate. The people of the District of Columbia 
    have to look to Congress to legislate for them. They have no 
    legislative body of their own. They have maintained this separate 
    school system at least for the last 80 years and probably ever 
    since the District of Columbia was created. This amendment would 
    destroy it, and in my opinion would close the white schools of the 
    District. For that reason I say it is more far reaching than any 
    mere limitation, it is a change in fundamental law, and the point 
    of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment proposes to incorporate a 
    legislative provision in an appropriation bill that does not come 
    within the purview of the Holman rule and that it sets up an 
    affirmative agency in the law.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    add further points of order upon which I should like to be heard at 
    a later time in the discussion.
        The Chairman: The Chair would appreciate very much the 
    gentleman's talking to the points of order to help the Chair arrive 
    at a decision.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I merely want to make them at this time. 
    I will discuss them later.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then there will be two points of order pending 
    at the same time.
        The Chairman: Any number of reasons can be given for the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But reasons are different from points of 
    order. I submit the points of order to be dealt with one at a time 
    and the first point of order raised must be passed on before others 
    are made.
        Mr. Rankin: Oh, no. That is not the rule.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The Chair will make the ruling, not the 
    gentleman form Mississippi. I am addressing the Chair.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the further point 
    of order that this amendment would impose additional duties upon 
    the executive officials.
        I make the further point of order that it does not necessarily 
    and will not even if carried out result in any reduction of 
    expenditures as required under the Holman rule.
        I make the further point of order that it is obvious on the 
    face of the amendment that the object is not to effect a 
    retrenchment, as required by the Holman rule, but to effect 
    legislation.
        I ask to be heard on these points of order at a later time.

[[Page 6382]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The first point of order is that it would change the laws of 
    the District of Columbia. There are no laws of the District of 
    Columbia which guarantee segregation.
        As to the second point of order that it would add to expenses, 
    we can cite that segregation has always been more expensive than 
    democracy.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is definitely a 
    negative limitation. It prohibits the use of funds appropriated in 
    this bill for certain specific purposes which are enumerated in the 
    amendment. It does not change any existing law and Congress has the 
    right to withhold the funds for any purpose enumerated in an 
    appropriation act or to withhold funds for any purpose for which an 
    appropriation is being made.
        This bill makes appropriations for the District of Columbia. 
    The amendment simply states that none of the funds appropriated in 
    this bill shall be expended to do certain things. We have had that 
    up time and time again. I recall distinctly the Lea amendment in 
    which funds were withheld from the National Labor Relations Board 
    for taking jurisdiction over so-called agricultural workers.
        There is no additional duty imposed upon anyone. The amendment 
    deals with an existing condition, that is, segregation in 
    education, segregation in recreation, in hospitals and other 
    places. I repeat there is no additional duty imposed on anyone. The 
    amendment strictly is a negative limitation which we have had in 
    this committee time and time again. . . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, this question all revolves 
    around the so-called Holman rule, which is rule XXI. The theory of 
    the Holman rule is that legislation on an appropriation bill is out 
    of order unless it retrenches expenses and to that has been added 
    by various rulings of the Chair from time to time further 
    limitations upon the rule.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Virginia give the Chair 
    the benefit of his advice as to how this is a limitation of the 
    fund?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It is a very definite limitation. It 
    says, ``No part of the fund shall be expended,'' for certain 
    facilities, for certain things, either done or omitted to be done.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to find out whether or not 
    this is a proper limitation. The Chair does not believe that the 
    Holman rule is involved so much as the limitation question.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, if we go to the question 
    of limitation, we still have the same rule to this extent, and you 
    will find it in the rule book under section 845. I will not 
    undertake to read all of it:

            But such limitation must not give affirmative direction and 
        must not impose new duties upon an executive officer.

        I made that point of order because if this amendment were 
    adopted it would

[[Page 6383]]

    cover every executive agent performing the duties covered by these 
    appropriations to proceed to carry out this rule of segregation. It 
    would impose not only affirmative duties but arduous duties upon 
    every executive officer who has anything to do with carrying out 
    these facilities.
        It is a very definite rule which has been sustained time and 
    time again by the Speaker and by the chairmen of various committees 
    that no limitation is in order which imposes any other duty upon an 
    executive officer.
        Passing that point to another, let me quote:

            And it must not be coupled with legislation not directly 
        instrumental in effecting a reduction.

        Let us look at this amendment and see whether it effects any 
    reduction. I ask the gentlemen who oppose the point of order, will 
    this amendment, if adopted, save the District of Columbia a single 
    dollar?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Certainly it would.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Will it remove a single facility?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Absolutely. Instead of having two school 
    systems you will have one.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Exactly the same facilities will be 
    required; exactly the same number of children will go to school and 
    exactly the same number of teachers, janitors, the same amount of 
    heat and every other thing appropriated for in this bill will be 
    required.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The gentleman has asked a question. May I 
    answer it? . . .
        The point is, Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's 
    question, that with segregation you double the number of 
    administrative offices, the number of facilities, and the 
    expenditures are thereby increased, and therefore the amendment 
    definitely is a saving to the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That is just the gentleman's conclusion.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Well, the gentleman asked the question.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: My conclusion is just the opposite; that 
    it will not do any such thing. As to the burden of proof when such 
    an amendment is offered and the point of order is made the 
    authorities are clear that it is the duty of the proponent of the 
    amendment to show definitely that there will be a retrenchment in 
    expenditures and a reduction in the necessary appropriations. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Since I am the proponent of the measure, I would 
    like to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, that here 
    in the District of Columbia an entirely duplicate system of 
    superintendence is maintained out of the treasury of the District 
    of Columbia. You have a Negro superintendent and a white 
    superintendent with exactly the same position right down the line. 
    That would be a saving.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And you would have to have just as many 
    superintendents, and just as many schools, and just as many school 
    children, and just as many teachers.
        Mr. Powell: But not as many superintendents.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I do not know about that. I expect you 
    would have just as many, if not a few more.
        Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I wanted to make. It is 
    another

[[Page 6384]]

    very definite rule of parliamentary law. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: This would also increase the number of police 
    required, and increase the expenses of the District instead of 
    curtailing them.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Well, again, as I say, as I said to the 
    gentleman from New York, that is just one man's opinion, and there 
    has not been any proof that it will save a nickel.
        I call attention of the Chairman to the third point I wanted to 
    make. This is on construing a proposed limitation, and I think very 
    crucial and very decisive on this point of order.

            In construing a proposed limitation, if the Chair finds the 
        purpose to be legislative, in that the intent is to restrict 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail, 
        he should sustain the point of order.

        Now, this is definitely a situation where obviously the purpose 
    is to change an administrative policy, a policy that has long 
    prevailed, and the authorities on that are so definite and so clear 
    that it seems there can be no doubt left.
        I would like to read the Chair what Chairman Luce said on 
    January 8, 1925, when this amendment was up, which was offered by 
    Mr. Hull, of Iowa, which reads:

            No part of the moneys appropriated in this act shall be 
        used to pay any officer to recruit the Army beyond the limit of 
        100,000, 3-year enlisted strength.

        There was long discussion about the point of order on that 
    amendment, and this is the conclusion of the Chair on page 1497:

            In the judgment of the Chair there is no adequate proof 
        embodied in the amendment, or any necessary conclusion from the 
        amendment, that there will be a reduction of expenditure.

        Therefore, the Chair is unable to see that it complies in this 
    regard with the second paragraph of rule XXI, commonly known as the 
    Holman rule.
        I think that is all I have to say except to call attention to 
    one more extract of a ruling that took place on February 18, 1918, 
    when Mr. Saunders, of Virginia, was in the chair and a similar 
    question arose. He said:

            The situation developed by this amendment is as follows: 
        The amendment first proposes to reduce the amount carried in 
        this paragraph. That is perfectly competent under parliamentary 
        law. In addition, it is proposed for legislation to accompany 
        the reducing portion of the amendment. But this legislation has 
        no sort of relation to the proposed reduction. It is perfectly 
        competent to legislate on an appropriation bill, provided the 
        legislation proposed necessarily effects a reduction; but it is 
        just as plainly incompetent to propose a reducing amendment to 
        an appropriation bill, a motion which can be made at any time 
        without reference to the Holman rule, and then undertake to 
        attach to this motion legislation which does not effect the 
        reduction and is not in any wise related to it.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is clearly subject 
    to the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: I call the gentleman's attention also to the fact 
    that it has been held time and time again that the reduction or 
    entrenchment must show on the face of the amendment. This amendment 
    shows no such reduction.

[[Page 6385]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That would show it would be a saving of 
    money?
        Mr. Rankin: Yes. This amendment makes no such showing. . . .
        Mr. Marcantonio: First of all, the Chair has ruled with regard 
    to the Holman rule. What is involved here, as the gentleman from 
    Virginia pointed out, is whether or not there is a change of policy 
    or law; and when we are talking about policy we are talking about 
    law. This amendment does not involve a change in the law at all. 
    This restricts, or rather, prohibits the use of funds with regard 
    to an administration which is not authorized by law at all. 
    Congress has passed no law providing for segregation in the 
    District of Columbia. Segregation is only an administration ruling 
    applied by various agencies and departments of the District of 
    Columbia. Congress certainly has the right to say, by means of a 
    negative limitation, that none of those agencies can have any funds 
    in carrying out that particular practice. I see no difference 
    between this negative limitation and all of the others that we have 
    had before this Committee. It simply says to the various bureaus, 
    ``No funds shall be given to you, not for the carrying out of any 
    law, but no funds shall be given to you for the carrying out of a 
    practice not authorized by law.'' Therein lies the distinction 
    between the situation the gentleman from Virginia tried to set up 
    and what we actually have involved in this amendment.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a moment 
    on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Rankin: I call the attention of the Chair to the fact, as I 
    pointed out to the gentleman from Virginia a moment ago, that it 
    has been held time and time again that in order to be in order 
    under the Holman rule the reduction or retrenchment must show on 
    the face of the amendment. All the reduction they propose is 
    speculative.
        If you are going off into the realm of speculation, I submit 
    that this amendment will probably increase expenses far more than 
    it will curtail them, by increasing the police force, hospital 
    facilities, doctors, jail facilities, and other things of that 
    kind. I submit that this is merely a fantastic attempt to stir up 
    race trouble in the District of Columbia, and the point of order 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has listened very attentively to the arguments pro 
    and con and has reached the conclusion that the Holman rule is not 
    in issue at the present moment. The wording of the amendment reads, 
    ``Provided, that no part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be used for any of the purposes therein mentioned,'' and they 
    are enumerated.
        After serious consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is a proper limitation and overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 68.2 An amendment to a chapter of the general appropriation bill, 
    1951, providing that no part of any appropriation contained in this 
    chapter shall be used for any of the purposes therein men

[[Page 6386]]

    tioned by any agency, office, or department of the District of 
    Columbia which segregates the citizens of the District of Columbia 
    in employment, facilities afforded, services performed, 
    accommodations furnished, instructions or aid granted, on account 
    of race, color, creed, or place of national origin of the citizens 
    of the District of Columbia, was held to be a proper limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and therefore in order.

        On Apr. 19, 1950,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 5390, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Vito) Marcantonio (of New York): Page 
    2, line 5, after the period, insert the following: ``Provided, That 
    no part of any appropriation contained in this chapter shall be 
    used for any of the purposes therein mentioned by any agency, 
    office or department of the District of Columbia which segregates 
    the citizens of the District of Columbia in employment, facilities 
    afforded, services performed, accommodations furnished, 
    instructions or aid granted, on account of race, color, creed, or 
    place of national origin of the citizens of the District of 
    Columbia.''
        Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not germane. It goes beyond the scope of the chapter that we have 
    under consideration.
        Mr. Marcantonio: . . . The amendment is a negative limitation. 
    It does not violate the Holman rule. It provides for a saving. We 
    had the same situation on March 2, 1949, and on April 5, 1946, and 
    the germaneness of the amendment was sustained by the Chairmen. I 
    call the Chair's attention to the two precedents, the one on March 
    2, 1949, and the one on April 5, 1946. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I just 
    rise to say that this amendment is not in order. In the first place 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill. It attempts to change a 
    law, to change the requirements, you might say, for the use of this 
    money in the District of Columbia, and in that way attempts to 
    write legislation into an appropriation bill, and is therefore not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment which has been 
    reported. Of course, the decision of the Chair has to be in 
    conformance with the precedents and the rules of the House, and it 
    certainly does not reflect any individual views of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the identical 
    amendment was offered on two previous occasions, on April 5, 
    1946,(11) and on March 2, 1949.(12) In both 
    instances the point of order was overruled. Under the prece

[[Page 6387]]

    dents here cited, the Chair is compelled to overrule the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 68.1, supra.
12. See 95 Cong. Rec. 1743, 1744, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.3 To a section of a supplemental appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds appropriated therein shall be used in the branches of 
    the Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation was held germane and a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds.

    On Apr. 15, 1948,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6226. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: 
    On page 2, line 25, insert ``Provided further, That none of the 
    funds herein appropriated shall be used in the branches of the 
    Department of the Air Force in which there exists racial 
    segregation.''. . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is, 
    therefore, not in order on this bill; that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; that it imposes additional burdens and 
    restrictions that are entirely out of place.
        This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill. 
    I submit that the amendment is out of order from practically every 
    standpoint.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Joseph P. O'Hara (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment which has 
    limitations; it is negative; it is the type that has been ruled in 
    order on previous appropriation bills.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is germane and is in order 
    and consequently overrules the point of order.

Sec. 68.4 To the Federal Security Agency title of the general 
    appropriation bill, 1951, an amendment providing that ``No part of 
    any appropriation under this title shall be paid as grants to any 
    State or educational institution in which, because of race, color, 
    or creed, discriminatory practices deny equality of educational 
    opportunity or employment to anyone to pursue such educational 
    courses or employment as are provided by such a grant,'' was held 
    to be a proper limitation restricting the availability of funds and 
    in order.

    On Apr. 26, 1950,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6388]]

ering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 5816, 5817, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Vito) Marcantonio (of New York): On 
    page 151, line 5, after the period, add a new section:
        ``Sec. 209. No part of any appropriation under this title shall 
    be paid as grants to any State or educational institution in which, 
    because of race, color, or creed, discriminatory practices deny 
    equality of educational opportunity or employment to anyone to 
    pursue such educational courses or employment as are provided by 
    such a grant.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane 
    and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I do not see 
    how those conclusions can be escaped. It is clearly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill, and an attempt to interfere with and direct 
    the affairs of every State in the Union and of every Territory. The 
    point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I refer the Chairman 
    to the Congressional Record of March 8, 1948, page 2356. This 
    identical amendment was offered by me on that day and a point of 
    order was made by the gentleman from Mississippi, against the 
    amendment. It is the same amendment, word for word, to the same 
    section of the bill, and the point of order was overruled. It is 
    definitely a negative limitation.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state in reply that 
    because one Chairman makes a mistake does not bind the House for 
    all time to come. There was an error on the part of the Chairman, 2 
    years ago.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi knows that the present occupant of the chair is bound 
    by the decisions and precedents of the House.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi has made a point of order against the amendment. The 
    Chair has examined the amendment and has compared it with the 
    language appearing in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York on March 8, 1948, against which a point of order was made 
    by the gentleman from Mississippi on the same grounds as stated by 
    him on this occasion. At that time the Chair ruled that the 
    amendment was a limitation on an appropriation bill. Of course, it 
    is the duty of the occupant of the chair to follow the rules of the 
    House and the precedents and decisions of the House. So, in view of 
    this decision the Chair is compelled to and has no other recourse 
    than to overrule the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the Mar. 8, 1948, ruling (17) 
referred to by Mr. Marcantonio, the Chairman, Forest A. Harness, of 
Indiana, decided that an identical amendment was germane to H.R.

[[Page 6389]]

5728, the Labor-Federal Security appropriation bill. Mr. Rankin made 
the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 2356, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment that the amendment is not germane and it is not in order 
    at this point in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Marcantonio: . . . The amendment certainly is germane. It 
    is simply a negative limitation. It restricts the use of the funds 
    and it is clearly in order.
        The Chairman: There is no question but that the amendment is 
    germane. This is an appropriation bill and the amendment deals with 
    an appropriation made in the bill. Therefore the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 68.5 In an appropriation bill providing funds for grants for 
    hospital construction, an amendment providing that ``no part of any 
    appropriation contained in this section shall be used . . . by any 
    agency or facility which segregates . . . on account of race, 
    color, ancestry or religion'' was held to be a limitation and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5024, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grants for hospital construction: For payments under parts C 
    and G, title VI, of the act, as amended, $121,200,000, of which 
    $99,000,000 shall be for payments for hospitals and related 
    facilities pursuant to part C, $1,200,000 shall be for the purposes 
    authorized in section 636 of the act, and $21,000,000 shall be for 
    payments for facilities pursuant to part G, as follows: $6,500,000 
    for diagnostic or treatment centers, $6,500,000 for hospitals for 
    the chronically ill and impaired, $4,000,000 for rehabilitation 
    facilities, and $4,000,000 for nursing homes: Provided, That 
    allotments under such parts C and G to the several States for the 
    current fiscal year shall be made on the basis of amounts equal to 
    the limitations specified herein. . . .
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: On page 25, line 17, 
        before the period insert ``Provided, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this section shall be used for any 
        of the purposes therein mentioned by any agency or facility 
        which segregates citizens in facilities offered, services 
        performed, and granted on account of race, color, ancestry or 
        religion.'' . . .

        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane for the same reason that 
    the other amendment was not germane. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this amendment in 
    exact language as submitted has been held to be germane for the 13 
    years I have been a Member of the House of Representatives and I 
    submit the following

[[Page 6390]]

    pages in the Record: For instance, in the 83d Congress, 1st 
    session, volume 99, part 5, page 5921, where the Parliamentarian 
    upheld my views.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule, 
    having ruled on a quite similar motion back in 1946 when the 
    District of Columbia appropriation bill was up for consideration. 
    The Chair held then that it was a limitation on the use of the 
    money and so holds now, and therefore overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.6 To a bill appropriating funds for the Civil War Centennial 
    Commission, an amendment providing that none of the funds 
    appropriated may be used for activities conducted in facilities in 
    which individuals are segregated or discriminated against because 
    of race, religion, or color was held to be a limitation and in 
    order.

    On Apr. 18, 1961,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6345, a Department of the Interior appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 6132, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold M.] Ryan [of Michigan]: Page 
    41, immediately before the period in line 18, insert the following: 
    ``, except that no part of such amount shall be expended for 
    activities of the Civil War Centennial Commission conducted in 
    facilities in which individuals are segregated on the basis of 
    race, religion, or color, or for any activities of the Commission 
    in which individuals are discriminated against on the basis of 
    race, religion, or color.''
        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment, in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment is in order 
    because it is a limitation on the appropriation and how it shall be 
    spent. I believe the amendment is in order under previous rulings 
    and under section 843 of the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It appears to the Chair that this is merely a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill; therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 68.7 To an appropriation bill providing funds for hospital 
    construction, an amendment providing that no part of the 
    appropriations in the paragraph under consideration be used for any 
    hospital having separate facilities on the basis of race, creed, or 
    color was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 6391]]

ering H.R. 10904, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 5165, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Hospital Construction Activities

        To carry out the provisions of title VI of the Act, as amended, 
    $188,572,000, of which $125,000,000 shall be for grants or loans 
    for hospitals and related facilities pursuant to part C. . . .
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of New York: On page 25, line 
        21, immediately before the period insert the following ``: 
        Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated in 
        this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color''. . . .

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I 
    rise to support an amendment which would provide a limitation upon 
    the appropriations for hospital construction activities: that is, 
    relating to page 25 of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the use of funds 
    appropriated under the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction 
    for segregated facilities.
        The Hill-Burton program has provided Federal financing to help 
    construct more than 2,000 medical care facilities in 11 Southern 
    States. Since the inception of the Hill-Burton program these States 
    have received $562,921,000 for hospital construction. Authorities 
    have pointed out that virtually all of these institutions 
    discriminate in various ways against Negro citizens.
        Patterns of discrimination may vary. For example, some 
    hospitals bar Negro patients altogether. The New York Times on 
    February 13, 1962, reported that, according to the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare, 100 of the 4,000 Hill-Burton 
    hospitals bar Negroes. Others admit Negro patients, but segregate 
    them within the hospital. One hospital in Georgia, for example, 
    provides only 12 beds for Negro patients, and the beds are located 
    in a segregated section of the hospital in the basement. This 
    hospital also refuses to admit any Negro pediatric or maternity 
    cases. In addition, many Southern hospitals refuse to allow Negro 
    doctors to treat patients in the hospital, and discriminate against 
    Negroes in their employment practices.
        Recently, discriminatory practices in federally aided hospitals 
    have been dramatized. On February 13, 1962, six Negro doctors and 
    three Negro dentists and two Negroes in need of medical care filed 
    a complaint in a Federal district court in Greensboro, N.C. The 
    complaint alleged that discriminatory practices in hospitals 
    violate the due process and equal protection clause of the fifth 
    amendment. The court has been asked to issue an injunction 
    prohibiting the defendants from--

            Continuing to enforce the policy, practice, custom, and 
        usage of deny

[[Page 6392]]

        ing admission to patients on the basis of race and in any way 
        conditioning or abridging the admission to, and use of, the 
        said facilities on the basis of race.

        The pattern of discrimination may vary, Mr. Chairman, but there 
    is abundant evidence that the results seldom do. The policy of 
    ``separate but equal'' in our medical care system almost invariably 
    results in the unequal or inadequate medical care for many American 
    citizens. Equality must be more than a mere slogan. It must, if we 
    are to be true to our democratic principles, be a reality.
        I believe that the elimination of Federal expenditures for 
    segregated facilities is long overdue and that it is time for the 
    U.S. Congress to make clear that it does not condone racial 
    segregation in our hospitals nor the practice of using taxpayer's 
    money to support this doctrine. I hope that all the Members of this 
    body will support this amendment and uphold the principles upon 
    which our Nation was founded.
        Civil rights is the great unfinished business facing America. 
    It is the unfinished business of Congress. Of course, I do not mean 
    to imply by my amendment that the executive branch is without power 
    to act in this situation, but I do believe that Congress has a 
    present responsibility. By adopting this simple amendment, we have 
    the opportunity to strike down one area of discrimination. Mr. 
    Chairman, I urge its adoption. . . .
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, ever since I have been on this 
    committee I have opposed legislation on appropriation bills. In my 
    opinion, even though this is technically a limitation, this would 
    have the effect of changing existing law, the so-called Hill-Burton 
    Act. Therefore, I request that the amendment be voted down. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Rhode Island 
    has reserved his point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island insist on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have 
    stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I 
    ask the committee to vote down the amendment. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet 
    at the time the gentleman from Rhode Island was recognized and I 
    was on my feet for the purpose of making a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] 
    now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order 
    against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order. 
    However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from 
    Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment to which a 
    point of order has been made. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a proper 
    limitation

[[Page 6393]]

    under the rules of the House and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Busing of Students

Sec. 68.8 A provision in an appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    the funds therein ``to force busing of students, the abolishment of 
    any school or the attendance of students at a particular school as 
    a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds'' was held in 
    order as a limitation.

    On July 31, 1969,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, an appropriation bill for the Departments of 
Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk Read as follows:
        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any school or 
    the attendance of students at a particular school as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State, school district, or school.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of 
    the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not 
    a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional 
    duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408 
    because it would require additional personnel to determine whether 
    busing has been used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, 
    two, to require the attendance of any student at any particular 
    school. You would have to have investigators there to determine 
    this as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
    available to any State school district or school: No. 1, for the 
    abolition of any school, and No. 2, whether the attendance of any 
    student at any particular school could be investigated there to 
    determine this as a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds 
    otherwise available to any State, school district or school.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chairman to sustain the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    raised the point awhile ago that the gentleman, having asked 
    unanimous consent that the amendments to the two sections be 
    considered en bloc and having obtained that unanimous-consent 
    request, and after having the amendments considered en bloc in 
    connection with the two sections, that the House has already 
    considered section 409 and the point of order comes too late. That 
    is the situation on the one hand.
        Second, a reading of the section clearly shows that the House 
    has already considered section 409 in connection with the prior 
    amendments. In addition to that, this is clearly a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and does not have to conform to the Holman rule.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman--

[[Page 6394]]

        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Louisiana 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a limitation on the expenditure 
    of funds provided in this legislation. The wording of section 409 
    is identical in every respect with the wording of the language 
    included in the bill last year and agreed to by this House. 
    Therefore, we have the precedent of its having been accepted 
    without a point of order having been made.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts for that purpose.
        Mr. Conte: The point of order that was ruled against the 
    amendment offered was passed by this House last year on a unanimous 
    vote and no one raised a point of order on that.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The clear intent of this section is to impose a negative 
    restriction on the use of the moneys contained in this bill.
        The Chair has examined a decision in a situation similar to 
    that presented by the current amendment in the 86th Congress, 
    during consideration of the Defense Department appropriation bill, 
    an amendment was offered by Mr. O'Hara, of Michigan, which 
    provided--and the Chair is now paraphrasing--no funds appropriated 
    in that bill should be used to pay on a contract which was awarded 
    to the higher of two bidders because of certain Defense Department 
    policies. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Keogh, of 
    New York, held the amendment in order as a limitation, even though 
    it touched on the policy of an executive department--86th Congress, 
    May 5, 1960; Congressional Record, volume 106, part 7, page 9641. 
    Chairman Keogh quoted, in his decision, the precedent carried in 
    section 3968 of volume IV, Hinds' Precedents, and the Chair thinks 
    the headnote of that earlier precedent is applicable here:

            The House may provide that no part of an appropriation 
        shall be used in a certain way, even though executive 
        discretion be thereby negatively restricted.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: But see Sec. 61.1, supra, where a 
prohibition against the use of funds ``in order to overcome racial 
imbalance'' was held to impose additional duties on federal officials 
and was ruled out as legislation on July 31, 1969.

Sec. 68.9 To provisions in a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein to force any school district to take any 
    actions involving the busing of students, or other specified 
    actions, against the will of parents, or as a condition precedent 
    to obtaining federal funds, amendments limiting

[[Page 6395]]

    the application of such provisions to those school districts in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of race 
    were held in order as adding definitions to the valid limitations 
    in the bill and as being merely descriptive of the school districts 
    covered thereby.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 15931, a Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
and Welfare, appropriation bill, which contained the following 
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. The provisions in 
        the appropriation bill containing the prohibition described 
        above are quoted on p. 4022, by Mr. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds contained in this Act may be 
    used to force any school district to take any actions involving the 
    busing of students, the abolishment of any school or the assignment 
    of any student attending any elementary or secondary school to a 
    particular school against the choice of his or her parents or 
    parent.
        Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
    used to force any school district to take any actions involving the 
    busing of students, the abolishment of any school or the assignment 
    of students to a particular school as a condition precedent to 
    obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any State, school 
    district or school.

    The following amendments were offered to such provisions, and a 
point of order against the amendments was subsequently made:

        Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 60, line 20 after the words ``school district'' insert ``in 
    which students are assigned to particular schools on the basis of 
    geographic attendance areas drawn without consideration of the race 
    or color of prospective students and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race or color'' and on line 23 after the 
    words ``particular school'' insert the words ``other than his 
    neighborhood school.''
        On page 61, line 2, after the words, ``school district,'' 
    insert the words, ``in which students are assigned to particular 
    schools on the basis of geographic attendance areas drawn without 
    consideration of the race or color of prospective students and in 
    which personnel are assigned without regard to race or color.'' And 
    on line 4, after the words, ``particular school,'' insert the 
    words, ``other than his neighborhood school.'' . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, these are the neighborhood school 
    amendments.
        We have heard a good deal of oratory recently to the effect 
    that the problem of segregation in the South is just exactly like 
    the problem of segregation in the North, and that we ought to treat 
    the two alike and consider them the same.

[[Page 6396]]

        Well, I do not happen to agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I 
    am here giving a clear-cut opportunity to any southern school 
    system to enjoy the benefits of the Whitten amendment by 
    establishing a neighborhood school system in which attendance areas 
    are drawn without regard to race and in which personnel are 
    assigned without regard to race.
        This amendment is designed to prevent a school district from 
    having its cake and eating it at the same time. The Whitten 
    amendment, if my amendments are adopted, would apply only to school 
    systems that have a bona fide neighborhood school system. It would 
    not apply to a school system that is already busing pupils in order 
    to maintain segregation. The Whitten amendments, if my amendments 
    are adopted, would not apply to dual school systems--the school 
    systems where they are now taking a black child who might live next 
    door to the white school and busing him across the county to the 
    black school. They would not obtain any benefit from the Whitten 
    amendments if my amendments to them are adopted.
        Mr. Chairman, this is an eminently reasonable amendment, and I 
    hope it will be adopted.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . [A]s I read the 
    language proposed in the amendment, it seems crystal clear to me 
    that the language imposes on the executive branch additional 
    burdens and consequently is contrary to the rules of the House as 
    far as legislation on an appropriation bill is concerned. It is 
    clearly an instance of where the language proposed adds burdens and 
    is contrary to the rules of the House as far as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill is concerned. None of the additional burdens 
    were previously authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara:  . . . Mr. Chairman, the limitation is in sections 
    408 and 409. It is a bona fide limitation. All my amendment seeks 
    to do is to prescribe with particularity the school districts to 
    which the limitation in sections 408 and 409 will apply. It does 
    not seek to insert the limitation or to provide for legislation. It 
    simply seeks to describe with more particularity the school 
    districts and the school systems to which the limitations in 
    sections 408 and 409 will apply. Therefore I submit it is not 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There is nothing in Federal law today which 
    would authorize such action by the proper officials in the 
    executive branch of the Government. This addition to the limitation 
    in sections 408 and 409 does put additional burdens on the 
    executive branch of the Government to determine these kinds of 
    school districts. It is perfectly obvious by the proposed language 
    that it has to be done in each and every case. It is not authorized 
    by law. It is a new burden. It is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had occasion to study both of the amendments and 
    the language contained therein. It is clear to the Chair that the 
    language relates to the limitations which are already a part of 
    sections 408 and 409. It defines the limitations further by adding 
    an additional definition to the limitations and in the opinion of 
    the Chair is negative insofar as additional action is

[[Page 6397]]

    concerned on the ground that it really is a description of the 
    school district as it exists at the present time. Therefore, the 
    Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.