[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 72. District of Columbia]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6421-6427]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 72. District of Columbia

Public Assistance; Apportionment to Escape Deficiency

Sec. 72.1 An amendment to the District of Columbia appro

[[Page 6422]]

    priation bill providing that no part of the appropriation for 
    public assistance shall be expended in such a manner as to require 
    a deficiency to supplement the appropriation was held to be a 
    proper limitation and in order as not changing the law 31 USC 
    Sec. 665(c) (see Revised Statutes Sec. 3679) already requiring 
    expenditures in such manner.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Public Assistance

        For the purpose of affording relief to residents of the 
    District of Columbia who are unemployed or otherwise in distress 
    because of the existing emergency, to be expended by the Board of 
    Public Welfare of the District of Columbia by employment and direct 
    relief, in the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and under 
    rules and regulations to be prescribed by the board and without 
    regard to the provisions of any other law, payable from the 
    revenues of the District of Columbia, $900,000, and not to exceed 
    7\1/2\ percent of this appropriation and of Federal grants 
    reimbursed under this appropriation shall be expended for personal 
    services: Provided That all auditing, disbursing, and accounting 
    for funds administered through the Public Assistance Division of 
    the Board of Public Welfare, including all employees engaged in 
    such work and records relating thereto, shall be under the 
    supervision and control of the Auditor of the District of Columbia: 
    Provided further, That this appropriation shall be so apportioned 
    and distributed by the Commissioners over the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1939, and shall be so administered, during such fiscal 
    year, as to constitute the total amount that will be utilized 
    during such fiscal year for such purposes: Provided further, That 
    not more than $75 per month shall be paid therefrom to any one 
    family. . . .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 58, line 2, after 
        the colon, insert ``Provided, That no part of this 
        appropriation shall be expended in such a manner as to require 
        a deficiency to supplement such appropriation.''

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Boileau] will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins] 
    would be legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore not in 
    order. The same argument and the same reasons would apply to this 
    amendment as to the former pro

[[Page 6423]]

    viso which was stricken. It is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment carefully and is of the 
    opinion this is a limitation; therefore the point of order is 
    overruled.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The amendment was in fact in conformity with existing law [see 31 
        USC Sec. 665(c)], which required expenditures to be carried out 
        in the manner described in the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Segregation

Sec. 72.2 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of the money contained therein should be 
    used for 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 was held a proper limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and therefore in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5990. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (1) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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

[[Page 6424]]

    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, 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. . . .
        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. . . .
        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.

Teachers Doing Clerical Work

Sec. 72.3 An amendment to a District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that no part of an appropriation shall be used to pay the 
    salary of any teacher performing any clerical work other than that 
    necessary or incidental to the classroom teaching assignments was 
    held to be a proper limitation and in order.

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

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 25, line 3, after 
        the word ``grades'' insert ``Provided, That no part of this 
        appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any teacher 
        performing any clerical work other than that necessary or 
        incidental to the classroom teaching assignments.''

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order to that amendment for the same reason.(3) The 
    existing law today says

[[Page 6425]]

    nothing about clerical work being done by teachers. This amendment, 
    of course, is introduced for the purpose of preventing teachers 
    from doing any clerical work. Even though it places a limitation on 
    some clerical work that they may be doing, it is contrary to 
    existing law and the point of order would lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The Chairman had just ruled out of order a provision in the bill 
        that ``teachers shall not perform any clerical work except that 
        which is necessary or incidental to their regular classroom 
        teaching assignments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The amendment here offered by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi provides that no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used to pay the salary of any teacher performing any clerical work 
    other than that necessary or incidental to the regular classroom 
    teaching assignment.
        The Chair is of opinion that this amendment in the form 
    presented is very clearly a limitation and retrenchment of 
    expenses, that it is germane, and that the point of order should be 
    overruled.

Airport Access Road

Sec. 72.4 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington, 
    D.C. airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the 
    appropriation which may be used for the construction of an 
    authorized access road was held to be a proper limitation and in 
    order.

    On June 29, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 3, 
    line 6, after the word ``expended,'' insert ``provided that not to 
    exceed $400,000 of the foregoing appropriation may be used for an 
    access road north from the airport.''
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, we think the amendment cures the 
    objection raised by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa. We think 
    this one is purely a straight limitation. It requires no outside 
    effort on the part of anybody. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access 
    roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that 
    the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which 
    funds may be used, that it is

[[Page 6426]]

    germane to the bill and is not legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Personal Services

Sec. 72.5 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    appropriating for personal services and providing that no other 
    appropriation made in the bill would be available for the 
    employment of additional assistant engineers or watchmen for the 
    care of the district buildings was held authorized by law and in 
    order.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for 
1939. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1303, 1304, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For personal services, including temporary labor, and service 
    of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per hour, 
    $129,000: Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act 
    shall be available for the employment of additional assistant 
    engineers or watchmen for the care of the District buildings.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a 
    point of order against the proviso in this paragraph, but first I 
    wish to raise a point of order as to the entire paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. In the 
    pending appropriation bill this proviso is found on page 4, line 
    15, with respect to the care of District buildings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Provided, That no other appropriation made in this act 
        shall be available for the employment of additional assistant 
        engineers or watchmen for the care of the District Building.

        To that proviso the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harlan] directs a 
    point of order upon the ground that the proviso is in the nature of 
    legislation which is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Caldwell: May I ask whether the point of order was not 
    later changed from the particular language referred to to the 
    entire section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will reach that in a moment. The Chair 
    is now directing his attention to the proviso because the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Harlan], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Collins], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] directed 
    their arguments largely to that proviso.
        The authority for making appropriations for the care of 
    District buildings is found in Fiftieth Statutes at Large, page 
    377, in this language:

            Provided, That all buildings belonging to the District of 
        Columbia

[[Page 6427]]

        shall be under the jurisdiction and control of the 
        Commissioners of the District.

        This proviso does not in any manner seek to take from the 
    District Commissioners their authority as custodians of the 
    buildings under their duties and responsibilities as Commissioners 
    of the District. This proviso in no manner contravenes the language 
    of this positive law. It is more in the nature of a limitation upon 
    the appropriation than a contravention or change of existing law.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair 
    permit an interruption?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Nichols: The point is, Mr. Chairman, that before this 
    proviso the existing law was that all of the buildings in the 
    District of Columbia should be under the control of the 
    Commissioners of the District, except certain buildings included in 
    which was the court building by specific provision. That was under 
    the control of the judges of the courts. This proviso wipes out the 
    control of the judges over this court building and places the 
    control in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. To this 
    extent the proviso does change existing law.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma that the feature to which the Chair is especially 
    addressing the ruling is whether this is a change of existing law. 
    The gentleman from Ohio bases his point of order on the ground that 
    this is a change of the law affecting the custody of the building 
    according to the statute the Chair just quoted. The proviso under 
    consideration in no manner changes existing law but is merely a 
    limitation on an appropriation. The Chair so holding must 
    necessarily overrule the point of order.
        The gentleman from Ohio also directed the point of order 
    against the paragraph the first portion of which includes this 
    language:

            For personal services, including temporary labor, and 
        service of cleaners as necessary at not to exceed 48 cents per 
        hour, $129,000.

        Standing alone, as a matter of course, this language is immune 
    from a point of order because it is solely an appropriation for 
    personal services, and so forth. If, therefore, the argument 
    directed to the proviso goes down, necessarily the point of order 
    against the paragraph as a whole must go down.
        The Chair overrules the point of order directed against the 
    paragraph.