[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[§ 43. Federal Employment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 5922-5943]
CHAPTER 26
Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
Sec. 43. Federal Employment
Conditions of Employment--Restricting Employment to Citizens
Sec. 43.1 Provisions in a section of a general appropriation bill
denying the use of funds to pay federal employees in a certain
category, declaring in part that an affidavit
[[Page 5923]]
signed under that section shall be considered prima facie evidence
of fulfilling requirements of the provision, and further imposing
penalties for making a false affidavit were ruled out as
legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
On Aug. 1, 1973,(12) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9590),
points of order were raised seriatim against the four provisos in the
following paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 27290, 27291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 602. Unless otherwise specified and during the current
fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any
officer or employee of the Government of the United States
(including any agency the majority of the stock of which is
owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of
duty is in continental United States unless such person (1) is
a citizen of the United States, (2) is a person in the service
of the United States on the date of enactment of this Act, who,
being eligible for citizenship, has filed a declaration of
intention to become a citizen of the United States prior to
such date, (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the United
States, or (4) is an alien from Poland or the Baltic countries
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence:
Provided, That for the purpose of this section, an affidavit
signed by any such person shall be considered prima facie
evidence that the requirements of this section with respect to
his status have been complied with: Provided further, That any
person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $4,000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both: Provided
further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing
law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer or
employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall be
recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This section
shall not apply to citizens of the Republic of the Philippines
or to nationals of those countries allied with the United
States in the current defense effort, or to temporary
employment of translators, or to temporary employment in the
field service (not to exceed sixty days) as a result of
emergencies.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order as follows: Line 20, beginning with the word
``Provided,'' at page 31 . . . The language continues to the word
``Provided'' at page 31, line 24, the word ``with'' and the colon.
The point of order is that this is violative of clause 2, rule
XXI, as constituting legislative action in an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma
desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this proviso has been in the bill for many years.
This may
[[Page 5924]]
impose a duty upon the person seeking, but it does not impose any
additional duties on the Government side of it, and it is a strict
limitation, it is a limitation in the sense that it requires only a
type of qualification which is standard.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The language,
an affidavit signed by such person shall be considered prima
facie evidence . . .
Seems to the Chair clearly to be legislation, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan will state his point
of order.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order to page
31, line 24, beginning with ``Provided further,'' down through the
word ``both'' and the colon on page 32, line 2.
The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this is again
legislation in an appropriation bill. I would point out to the
Chair that we are creating a new crime by this legislation, which
says:
That any person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a
felony, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than
$4,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both:
Obviously this is a legislative effort by the Committee on
Appropriations.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, in view of the ruling of the Chair on
the previous point of order, we concede this point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of
order is sustained.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I raise the same point of order
again as to rule XXI, clause 2, to the words, beginning on page 32,
line 2:
Provided further, That the above penal clause shall be in
addition to, and not in substitution for, any other provisions
of existing law:
I cite again the earlier ruling of the Chair, and the point of
order previously stated.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed)
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Steed: I do, Mr. Chairman. This is an entirely different
proposition. This is a very obvious limitation.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
It would appear to the Chair that this proviso relates to the
language that has already been stricken, and that the same ruling
that applied to the stricken language would apply to it: therefore
the Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have a further point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan will state his point
of order.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, skipping over to the next ``Provided
further,'' going down to the words, beginning on page 32, line 7:
This section shall not apply to citizens of the Republic of
the Philippines or to natives of those countries allied with
the United States in the current defense effort, or to
temporary employment of translators or to temporary employment
in the
[[Page 5925]]
field service (not to exceed sixty days) as a result of
emergencies.
Mr. Chairman, I make note of the fact that this again
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. I point out that
it imposes upon the Government agencies involved the duty to make
findings as to the citizenship of persons involved. Obviously this
is an additional burden which this legislative act would apply. It
again refers, Mr. Chairman, to earlier language which has been
stricken by points of order, and constitutes a hold on those
provisions which have previously been stricken by points of order.
So, Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order with regard to the
language appearing on page 32, commencing on line 7, with the
words, ``This section'' through the end of the paragraph in line
12.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and the point of
order is sustained.
-- Exclusion of Persons Advocating Right to Strike
Sec. 43.2 A provision in a general appropriation bill making it a
felony for a person ``who is a member of an organization of
Government employees that asserts the right to strike against the
Government'' to accept employment the salary or wages for which are
paid from funds contained in such bill was held to be legislation
and not in order.
On May 2, 1951, (14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 3790), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4741, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 301. No part of any appropriation contained in this act,
or of the funds available for expenditure by any corporation
included in this act, shall be used to pay the salary or wages of
any person who engages in a strike against the Government of the
United States or who is a member of an organization of Government
employees that asserts the right to strike against the Government
of the United States [and any such person who accepts] employment
the salary or wages for which are paid from any appropriation or
fund contained in this act shall be guilty of a felony. . . .
Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the entire section on the ground it is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Washington
makes a point of order against the entire section on the ground it
is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order.
[[Page 5926]]
-- Prohibition on Salary Until Security Clearance Certified
Sec. 43.3 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no part
of the appropriation shall be used to pay any person employed in
the State Department subsequent to a certain date, until essential
clearance as to loyalty has been certified by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the appropriate security committee of the State
Department, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.
On Mar. 27, 1946,(16) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the second Defense Department appropriation
bill (H.R. 5890), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 2695, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wigglesworth: On page 23, line 16,
after the figures ``$133,456'' strike out the period, insert a
comma, and the following: ``Provided,'' That no part of any
appropriation in this act shall be used to pay the salary or
wage of any person appointed or transferred to the Department
of State after September 1, 1945, until essential clearance as
to loyalty has been certified by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the appropriate security committee of the
Department of State.''. . .
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, while the
proposed amendment is in the form of a limitation, it is coupled
with an affirmative direction which amounts to a change of law. For
this reason, although presented in the guise of an exception to the
rule, it is, in effect, legislation on an appropriation bill, and
therefore subject to the point of order.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment as drawn is in the form of a limitation but it
does have in it positive language which gives it the effect of
legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore,
sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri.
Granting Authority to Terminate Employment
Sec. 43.4 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the
Secretary of State may, in his discretion, terminate the employment
of any employee of the Department of State or of the Foreign
Service whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or
advisable in the interests of the United States, was held to be
legislation on
[[Page 5927]]
an appropriation bill and not to be within the provisions of the
Holman rule.
On Apr. 20, 1950, (18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5480, 5481, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 104. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of
the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of
any other law, the Secretary of State may, in his absolute
discretion, during the current fiscal year, terminate the
employment of any officer or employee of the Department of
State or of the Foreign Service of the United States whenever
he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the
interests of the United States. . . .
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. The language of section 104 gives to the Secretary of
State--and I quote from the section--``in his absolute discretion''
power to terminate the employment of any employee. I do not believe
we have ever had legislation in the entire history of this Nation
which contained this language ``absolute discretion.''. . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion
this will result in a saving. It is in accordance with the
provisions of the Holman rule. When the power authorized in this
language is exercised and the Secretary terminates the employment
of any officer or employee in his absolute discretion that will
result in a saving. That will save money and is in order.
The Chairman: (19) . . . The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Marcantonio) has made a point of order against the language
appearing in section 104 on page 46 of the bill on the ground that
it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has examined
the language. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the
language does confer definite authority and requires certain acts
on the part of the Secretary of State. In response to the argument
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) as to the
application of the Holman rule it is clearly shown by the
precedents and decisions of the House that the saving must be
apparent and definite on its face in the language of the bill in
order for the Holman rule to apply. Certainly an examination of the
language in question clearly shows that any saving would be
speculative. In view of the long line of precedents and decisions
dealing with the question of legislation on an appropriation bill,
which is clearly prohibited under the rules of the House, the Chair
has no alternative other than to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Right to Work'' Amendment
Sec. 43.5 To a bill making appropriations to enable the Works Progress
Administration to continue to provide employment, an amendment
providing ``that no person
[[Page 5928]]
shall be deprived of work . . . because he does not belong . . . to
any organization'' was held to be legislation and not in order.
On Feb. 12, 1941,(20) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 3204),
a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 920-24, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoffman: On page 3, line 5, after
the figures, insert ``Provided, That no person shall be
deprived of work where work is provided because he does not
belong, refuses to join, or pay dues to any organization.''. .
.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Hoffman) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James M. Barnes (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, this is a limitation, in fact, on the right of a
certain group to prevent this money reaching those for whom it is
appropriated, therefore it is proper.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
Rule XXI of the House, referring to general appropriation
bills, provides:
Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment
thereto changing existing law be in order.
This being a supplementary appropriation bill, the amendment is
not in order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Employment by Judiciary
Sec. 43.6 To a general appropriation bill including funds for the
federal judiciary and placing a limitation on the total salaries
which may be paid by any judge for clerk and secretarial hire, a
provision specifying that without regard to such dollar
limitations, ``each circuit judge may appoint an additional law
clerk at not to exceed grade (GS) 9'' was ruled out as legislation,
no authority being cited to the Chair.
On May 28, 1968,(2) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17522),
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 15357, 15358, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language on page 42, beginning on line 3, which
reads as follows:
Provided further, That without regard to the aforementioned
dollar
[[Page 5929]]
limitations, each circuit judge may appoint an additional law
clerk at not to exceed grade (GS) 9.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this language on
the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that
this is authorized by law. The additional law clerk is most
certainly authorized. The committee inserted this language in the
bill so that they would not hire law clerks at higher grades that
GS-9. It is in the bill to save money or to keep down the amount of
money that would be required to pay these law clerks.
The Chairman: (3) Before the Chair rules on the
point of order, can the gentleman from New York cite to the Chair
the authority the gentleman says is already existing? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wayne L. Hays (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that if the additional clerk is authorized
somewhere in law, this would be a limitation upon the grade at
which the clerk could be appointed. What is sought to be found out
is whether there is existing legislation.
Mr. Gross: I point out, Mr. Chairman, ``without regard to the
aforementioned dollar limitations,'' and so on and so forth. It is
not a limitation.
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I am sure this is
authorized. However, we will concede the point of order in the
interest of saving time and bring it back to the House after the
conference. This does not affect the amount of money for these law
clerks.
The Chairman: In view of that statement, the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Establishing Salary Levels
Sec. 43.7 An amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to set levels
for salaries of all officials and employees of the federal
judiciary, not otherwise specifically provided for, was conceded
and held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not in
order.
On May 15, 1947,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 3311), a
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 93 Cong. Rec. 5385, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rooney: On page 66, after line 17,
insert a new paragraph to read as follows:
``Miscellaneous salaries: For salaries of all officials and
employees of the Federal judiciary, not otherwise specifically
provided for, $1,833,500: Provided, That the compensation of
secretaries and law clerks of circuit and district judges
(exclusive of any additional compensation under the Federal
Employees Pay Act of 1945 and any other acts of similar purport
subsequently enacted) shall be fixed by the Director of the
Administrative Office without regard to the Classification Act
of 1923, as amended, except that the salary of a secretary
shall conform with that of the main
[[Page 5930]]
(CAF-4), senior (CAF-5) or principal (CAF-6) clerical grade, or
assistant (CAF-7) or associate (CAF-8) administrative grade, as
the appointing judge shall determine, and the salary of a law
clerk shall conform with that of the junior (P-1), assistant
(P-2), associate (P-3), full (P-4), or senior (P-5)
professional grade, as the appointing judge shall determine,
subject to review by the judicial council of the circuit if
requested by the Director, such determination by the judge
otherwise to be final: Provided further, That (exclusive of any
additional compensation under the Federal Employees Pay Act of
1945 and any other acts of similar purport subsequently
enacted) the aggregate salaries paid to secretaries and law
clerks appointed by one judge shall not exceed $6,500 per
annum, except in the case of the senior circuit judge of each
circuit and senior district judge of each district having five
or more district judges, in which case the aggregate salaries
shall not exceed $7,500.''
Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rooney] on the ground that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Rooney] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rooney: No, Mr. Chairman; I must concede the point of
order. There is no authorization in law for this expenditure,
although it has been in this bill year after year for many years.
The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The point of
order is sustained.
Sec. 43.8 Language in a general appropriation bill providing additional
compensation for secretaries and law clerks to district and circuit
judges was conceded and held to be legislation on an appropriation
bill and not in order.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2376, 2377, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Miscellaneous salaries: For salaries of all officials and
employees of the Federal judiciary, not otherwise specifically
provided for, $1,400,000: Provided, That the compensation of
secretaries and law clerks of circuit and district judges
(exclusive of any temporary additional compensation) shall be
fixed by the Director of the Administrative Office without
regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, except
that the salary of a secretary shall conform with that of the
main (CAF-4), senior (CAF-5), or principal (CAF-6) clerical
grade, or assistant (CAF-7), or associate (CAF-8)
administrative grade, as the appointing judge shall determine,
and the salary of a law clerk shall conform with that of the
junior (P-1), assistant (P-2), associate (P-3), full (P-4), or
senior (P-5) professional grade, as the appointing judge shall
determine, subject to review by the judicial council of the
circuit if requested by the Director, such determination by the
judge otherwise to be final: . . .
Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of
[[Page 5931]]
order against the language on page 83, line 11, beginning with the
word ``provided'' down through the remainder of page 84, to and
including the word ``final'', page 84, line 1, on the ground that
it is legislation on an appropriation bill and not authorized by
law.
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, to amplify
the point of order raised by the gentleman from Kansas, I make the
point of order against the entire paragraph that it is legislation
on an appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: (7) . . . The Chair is particularly
interested in whether or not the paragraph is authorized by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we will have
to concede the point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Georgia insist on his
point of order?
Mr. Tarver: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to rule first upon the
point of order made by the gentleman from Georgia, in view of the
fact that it goes to the language of the entire paragraph. The
Chair must hold that the language is subject to a point of order
and, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the gentleman
from Georgia.
Providing New Position
Sec. 43.9 In a bill appropriating funds for United States participation
in the New York World's Fair, a provision for a ``United States
Commissioner'' for the fair, to be appointed by the President at a
rate not to exceed $19,500 per annum, was conceded to be
legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.
On Apr. 2, 1962,(8) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
11038), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 5932, 5933, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
General Administration
Participation in New York World's Fair
For expenses necessary to provide for United States
participation in the New York World's Fair, as authorized by
the provisions of the Act of September 21, 1961 (75 Stat. 527),
including compensation of a United States Commissioner, who
shall be appointed by the President, at a rate not to exceed
$19,500 per annum, and services as authorized by section 15 of
the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), but at rates for
individuals not to exceed $75 per diem, $17,000,000, to remain
available until expended. . . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: I make a point of order against the following
language beginning in line 16 and ending in line 18:
[[Page 5932]]
Including compensation of a United States Commissioner, who
shall be appointed by the President, at a rate not to exceed
$19,500 per annum,
I make the point of order that this is legislation on an
appropriation bill, and is so stated on page 9 of the report of the
committee accompanying the bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of
order is good.
The agency states that this position would be considered in
addition to the 10 persons authorized to be employed without regard
to the provisions of the Classification Act.
The act itself sets up 10 positions. What makes it subject to a
point of order is that the agency admits that it is not 1 of the 10
but is the 11th job and so it, as the 11th job, is subjected to a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order. The
point of order is sustained.
Authorizing Employment of Specialists at Salary Levels To Be Authorized
by the Department Head
Sec. 43.10 Language in an appropriation bill providing for employment
in the Customs Division, Department of Justice, ``of special
attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may be
authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his assistant,''
was conceded and held to be legislation conferring new authority on
an executive official.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(10) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 2353, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and expenses, Customs Division: For necessary
expenses, including travel expenses, purchase and exchange of
lawbooks and books of reference, and employment of special
attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may be
authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his
Administrative Assistant, $146,000.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the language beginning in line 10 on page 38 and continuing
down into line 13, which reads as follows: ``and employment of
special attorneys and experts at such rates of compensation as may
be authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his
Administrative Assistant,'' on the ground that that is legislation
in an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I concede
the point of order.
[[Page 5933]]
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Sec. 43.11 Language in an appropriation bill providing for employment
in the Lands Division, Department of Justice, of experts ``at such
rates of compensation as may be authorized or approved by the
Attorney General'' was conceded and held to be legislation.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(12) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 2354, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Id. at p. 2362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and expenses, Lands Division: For personal services in
the District of Columbia and for other necessary expenses,
including travel expenses, employment of experts at such rates of
compensation as may be authorized or approved by the Attorney
General, stenographic reporting services by contract, and notarial
fees or like services, $3,400,000.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language beginning in line 17, including all of
the language in that line and through the words ``Attorney
General'' in line 18.
The Chairman: (13) Beginning with the word ``at'' in
line 17, and ending with the word ``General'' in line 18?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: That is correct; on the ground it is legislation on
an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Pay of Witnesses
Sec. 43.12 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds to be
available as compensation and expenses of witnesses or informants
as may be authorized or approved by the Attorney General ``or his
administrative assistant'' was conceded and held to be legislation
as a new delegation of authority.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 2603), a
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2363, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees of witnesses: For expenses, mileage, and per diems of
witnesses and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, such payments
to be made on the certification of the attorney for the United
States and to be conclusive as provided by section 846, Revised
Statutes (28 U.S.C. 577), $700,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$25,000 of this amount shall be available for such
[[Page 5934]]
compensation and expenses of witnesses or informants as may be
authorized or approved by the Attorney General or his
administrative assistant, which approval shall be conclusive:
Provided further, That no part of the sum herein appropriated shall
be used to pay any witness more than one attendance fee for any one
calendar day, which fee shall not exceed $1.50 except in the
District of Alaska: Provided further, That whenever an employee of
the United States performs travel in order to appear as a witness
on behalf of the United States in any case involving the activity
in connection with which such person is employed, his travel
expenses in connection therewith shall be payable from the
appropriation otherwise available for the travel expenses of such
employee.
Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order against the language appearing on page 43, line 5, reading
``or his administrative assistant'' on the ground that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, we concede
the point of order. May I say that the appropriation for this item
in 1936 was $2,100,000. The amount suggested in this bill for 1946
is $750,000. This will bring to the attention of the Committee the
savings that have been attempted to be made by the Committee on
Appropriations.
The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizing Employment and Specifying Grade Level
Sec. 43.13 Language in a general appropriation bill providing for
positions of employment in certain grades, in addition to the
number authorized in existing law, was conceded and held to be
legislation and not in order.
On May 11, 1959,(16) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill
(H.R. 7040), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 7904, 7905, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 104 Cong.
Rec. 9065, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For necessary expenses of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
including contract stenographic reporting services; employment of
temporary guards on a contract or fee basis; hire, operation,
maintenance, and repair of aircraft; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; and services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of
August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates for individuals not to
exceed $50 per diem; $6,925,000: Provided, That the Chairman is
authorized without regard to any other provision of law, to place
five General Schedule positions in the following grades: one in
grade GS-18, one in grade GS-17, and three in grade GS-16, and such
positions shall be in addition to positions previously allocated to
this agency. . . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order against the language contained in the bill beginning on line
11 through line 16, page 4, as being legislation on an
[[Page 5935]]
appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, it may well be that the Civil
Aeronautics Board needs more super grades, but this is not the way
to get it.
The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Texas
desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the
point of order. Let me make this explanation to my distinguished
friend. You will recall that this language was put in the bill and
thoroughly argued and debated last year. It was covered by a rule,
you remember that, only it was for 10 of these jobs, and the Civil
Service Commission, through some misunderstanding, only granted 5
of them. Now, the same language was in for FAA, and they were
granted those 10. . . .
Mr. Gross: I must insist on my point of order in protection of
the committee and in protection of the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Thomas: I oppose the point of order because the paragraph
was read.
The Chairman: The Chair thinks the gentleman from Iowa was
within his rights to make the point of order. He observed the
gentleman standing when unanimous consent was granted to go back to
the previous section.
Mr. Thomas: Well, the point of order is good, then. We admit
it, then.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Providing Civil Service Rating for Officer
Sec. 43.14 A provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill
providing a GS-16 rating for the budget officer was conceded to be
legislation and held not in order.
On Mar. 28, 1952,(18) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill
(H.R. 7216), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 3137, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 9. Appropriations in this act shall be available for
personal services including under the executive office the
budget officer in GS-16 and, when authorized by the
Commissioners or by the purchasing officer and the auditor,
acting for the Commissioners, printing and binding may be
performed by the District of Columbia Division of Printing and
Publications without reference to fiscal-year limitations.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the language in lines 18 and 19 on page 45, as
follows: ``including under the executive office the budget officer
in GS-16 and,'' that it is legislation upon an appropriation bill
and provides for paying a higher salary than the law under which
the District of Columbia operates allows.
The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Bates) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe B.] Bates of Kentucky: We concede the point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
[[Page 5936]]
The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order. The
point of order is sustained.
Exempting Certain Persons From Employment Statutes
Sec. 43.15 Language in an appropriation bill exempting persons
appointed to part time employment as members of a civil service
loyalty board from application of certain statutes was held to be
legislation and not in order.
On Mar. 20, 1957,(20) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 6070), the
following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 4046, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order against the language beginning at line 23, page 3, and
running through line 4 on page 4 reading as follows:
Provided further, That nothing in sections 281 or 283 of
title 18, United States Code, or in section 190 of the Revised
Statutes (5 U.S.C. 99) shall be deemed to apply to any person
because of appointment for part-time or intermittent service as
a member of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty
Board in the Civil Service Commission as established by
Executive Order 10422, dated January 9, 1953, as amended.
I make the point of order on the ground that this language
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Chairman: (1) The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction of Personnel
Sec. 43.16 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that
in reducing personnel the determination as to which employees shall
be retained shall be made by the head of the agency concerned was
held to be legislation and not in order.
On June 28, 1952,(2) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
8370), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 98 Cong. Rec. 8503, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. No arguments were here
raised as to possible application of the Holman rule, which is
discussed in Sec. Sec. 4 and 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham A.] Ribicoff [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ribicoff to the amendment offered
by Mr. Jensen: After (b), No. 3, add a new paragraph as
follows:
``4. That 90 days after the enactment of this act, the
number of civilian employees who are United States citizens,
receiving compensation or allowances from the administrative
expense appropriations provided by this act, employed in the
United States and overseas by or assigned
[[Page 5937]]
to the Mutual Security Agency . . . shall be in the aggregate
at least 15 percent less than the number so employed or
assigned on June 1, 1952 . . . Provided further, That after the
Director has determined the reduction to be effected in each
agency, the determination as to which individual employees
shall be retained shall be made by the head of the agency
concerned.'' . . .
The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Virginia
make his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Yes. Mr. Chairman, as I
understand the amendment, it leaves the discharge of employees entirely
to the Administrator, which contravenes existing laws with reference to
veterans' preference and also the civil-service laws. It is
legislation; it contravenes existing legislation. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. Part of the language
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, after
the proviso, reads:
That after the Director has determined the reduction to be
effected in each agency, the determination as to which
individual employees shall be retained shall be made by the
head of the agency concerned.
This portion of the amendment does, in the opinion of the
Chair, alter the civil-service laws and laws relating to veterans'
preferences, and therefore constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained.
Establishing Level of Salary
Sec. 43.17 A provision in a general appropriation bill that an
appropriation shall be available for compensation of the Director
of Defense Mobilization at the rate of $22,500 per annum was
conceded and held to be legislation and stricken by the point of
order.
On June 28, 1952,(4) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
8370), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 98 Cong. Rec. 8504, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Chapter X
Emergency Agencies
Executive Office of the President
office of defense mobilization
For expenses necessary for the Office of Defense
Mobilization, including compensation of the Director of Defense
Mobilization, at the rate of $22,500 per annum; printing and
binding without regard to section 89 of the act of January 12,
1895, as amended (44 U.S.C. 213); hire of passenger-motor
vehicles; reimbursement of the General Services Administration
for security guard service; not to exceed $5,000 for emergency
and extraordinary expenses, to be expended under the direction
of the Director for such purposes as he deems proper, and his
determination thereon shall be final and conclusive; and
expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the purposes
of
[[Page 5938]]
this appropriation; $1,000,000: Provided, That contracts under
this appropriation for temporary or intermittent services as
authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C.
55a), may be renewed annually.
Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language on page 37, line 9, which
reads, 'at the rate of $22,500 per annum.' It is legislation on an
appropriation bill.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we
concede the point of order.
The Chairman: (5) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting Salary of Commissioner of Public Buildings
Sec. 43.18 Language in the independent offices appropriation bill
fixing the salary of the Commissioner of Public Buildings at
$10,000 per annum was ruled out as legislation on an appropriation
bill and not in order.
On Feb. 17, 1943,(6) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill
(H.R. 1762), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 89 Cong. Rec. 1055, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
General administrative expenses: For architectural,
engineering, mechanical, administrative, clerical, and other
personal services, including the salary of the Commissioner of
Public Buildings at $10,000 per annum. . . .
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman,
against the language on page 17, line 15, beginning with the word
``including'' and ending with the word ``annum'' in line 16, the
language reading ``including the salary of the Commissioner of
Public Buildings at $10,000 per annum,'' upon the ground that that
particular wording is legislation upon an appropriation bill and is
not authorized by law.
The Chairman: The gentleman objects to the language beginning
in line 15, after the word ``services''?
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: After the word ``services'' and including
the word ``annum'' in line 16.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the item
had the unanimous support of the subcommittee, but it is subject to
a point of order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Limitation on Average Salary
Sec. 43.19 To an appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a
limitation on the average salary in cases
[[Page 5939]]
``where separate agencies have been set up under the Defense
Production Act or the Civilian Defense Act,'' was held to be
legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.
On Aug. 20, 1951,(8) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R.
5215), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 97 Cong. Rec. 10409, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jenson: Page 44, line 10, insert a
new section as follows:
``None of the funds provided by this act shall be used to
pay employees at an average rate in excess of that paid from
the regular appropriations provided to the departments
concerned in the regular 1952 appropriation bills. Provided
further, That where separate agencies have been set up under
the Defense Production Act or the Civilian Defense Act, such
average salary shall not exceed $4,500 per annum.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the amendment is legislation on an
appropriation bill. It proposes to fix salaries and that is
manifestly legislation and not in order.
Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point
of order.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is purely and simply a limitation
on the amount of money that may be paid to Federal employees. In
the regular agencies of Government employees receive an average of
about $3,700 per annum. This simply limits other employees to a
minimum. I believe the amendment is germane because it does not
increase the authority of any agency which has appropriations in
this act.
The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Edward J. Hart (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the opinion of the Chair that section of the amendment
beginning after the word ``further'' and especially that part which
seeks to set a maximum upon the salaries which may be paid is
clearly not a limitation but is legislation, and, therefore,
subject to a point of order.
Limit on Number of Employees
Sec. 43.20 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill
limiting the appropriation for administrative personal services of
the Bureau of Reclamation and providing further that the total
number of employees in the bureau holding certain appointments
shall not exceed 3,500 at any one time during the current fiscal
year, was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and not
in order.
[[Page 5940]]
On Mar. 30, 1949,(10) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 3838), a point of order was raised against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 3528, 3529, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: On page 36, line 13, after
``work'' and before the period insert the following: ``Provided
further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 of appropriations
available for expenditure by the Bureau of Reclamation during
the current fiscal year shall be used for administrative
personal services and other personal services; Provided
further, That the total number of employees in the Bureau of
Reclamation holding permanent, temporary, or other appointments
in grades CAF-9 and P-3, or both, shall not exceed 3,500 at any
one time during the current fiscal year.''
Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Iowa offers an amendment, which the Clerk
has reported, against which the gentleman from Washington makes a
point of order on the ground that it contains legislation on an
appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House.
The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care.
The gentleman from Iowa points out that the amendment is only a
limitation on an appropriation bill. The first proviso contained in
the amendment probably meets the description given by the gentleman
from Iowa. If the amendment contained only the first proviso, the
Chair would be inclined to agree that it is a limitation on an
appropriation bill. However, the Chair invites attention to the
second proviso contained in the amendment, which does not make any
reference to a limitation of funds but seeks to control the number
of employees that may be used in a department, and also has
reference to the Classification Act and other matters which the
Chair thinks very clearly constitute legislation. Therefore, the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Repealing Limit on Salaries and Expenses
Sec. 43.21 A provision in an appropriation bill repealing a legislative
provision in a prior appropriation law that certain expenditures
during the fiscal year 1939 by the National Bituminous Coal
Commission ``shall not exceed an amount equal to the aggregate
receipts covered into the Treasury under the provisions of'' a
specified statute was conceded to be legislation on an
appropriation bill and consequently was held not in order.
[[Page 5941]]
On Mar. 22, 1939,(12) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 5219),
a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 3123, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The paragraph in the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act,
fiscal year 1938, under the caption ``National Bituminous Coal
Commission,'' is hereby amended by striking out the following
proviso: ``Provided, That expenditures during the fiscal year
1939 under this head and under the head `Salaries and expenses,
office of the Consumers' Counsel, National Bituminous Coal
Commission,' shall not exceed an amount equal to the aggregate
receipts covered into the Treasury under the provisions of
section 3 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937.''
Mr. [J. William] Ditter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on
an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede
the point of order.
The Chairman: (13) The point of order of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is conceded by the gentleman from
Virginia, and is therefore sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denial of Status to Aliens Not Holman Retrenchment
Sec. 43.22 Language in an appropriation bill providing ``that no alien
employed on the Canal Zone may secure United States civil-service
status,'' was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill and
not within the exception of the Holman rule.
On July 2, 1947,(14) During consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the War Department civil functions
appropriation, a point of order was raised against a provision, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 8171, 8172, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language on page 17, line 18,
subdivision (7), ``that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may
secure United States civil-service status,'' is legislation on an
appropriation bill in that it clearly changes existing law.
The existing law, Mr. Chairman, is found in the treaty which
was signed between the Republic of Panama and the Government of the
United States. The treaty was ratified by the Senate of the United
States in 1939. . . .
In February of this year an Executive order was issued by the
President modifying the civil-service rules. One portion of that
Executive order distinctly permits Panamanians to take civil
service examinations and be enrolled in the United States Civil
Service. Consequently, this language against which I have raised a
point of order forbids Panamanian citizens from securing civil-
service status.
[[Page 5942]]
Thus, it changes the law as set forth in the treaty and changes the
law as set out in the Executive order. It is clearly legislation on
an appropriation bill.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, if I may
be heard on the point of order, the first part of that section
reads as follows:
No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be
used directly or indirectly, except for temporary employment in
case of emergency, for the payment of any civilian for services
rendered by him on the Canal Zone while occupying a skilled,
technical, clerical, administrative, executive, or supervisory
position unless such person is a citizen of the United States
of America or of the Republic of Panama: Provided, however--
Then going to subdivision (7)--
that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may secure United
States civil-service status.
Under the Holman rule, even legislation on an appropriation
bill is permitted if it succeeds in the reduction of an
expenditure. If aliens are to be given United States civil-service
status, it will increase the liability of the United States for the
payment of civil-service retirement and other provisions of that
sort. Consequently, it seems to me that in that sense the inclusion
of this language is a protection of the Treasury of the United
States and may be permissible under the Holman rule. Clause 7, of
course, is directly related to the ``provided, however,'' and the
language of limitation in the first part of the section.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that an act of
Congress takes precedence over a treaty or even an Executive order
in the form of a treaty. So this language is clearly in order.
Congress has the right to enact this legislation.
The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. So
far as the remark just made by the gentleman from Mississippi is
concerned, as the Chair remembers, it is in the last analysis an
act of Congress, whether it be a treaty or whether it be a law.
Therefore, that remark is not germane to the question now before
the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the statement of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr.
Case] is concerned, regarding the Holman rule, at most, this
suggests that there might be a saving; there is the possibility of
a saving. The Holman rule is very clear that legislation must in
its language show an absolute saving. Therefore, that point would
not be of any value in sustaining the position which the gentleman
takes.
Section 7 provides that no alien employed on the Canal Zone may
secure United States civil-service status. So far as the Chair has
been advised, there is no law anywhere providing for that very
thing, excepting this legislation found in an appropriation bill.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
Defining Personal Liability of Federal Employees
Sec. 43.23 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
providing that
[[Page 5943]]
employees of the United States on whose certificate or approval
loans are made shall not be liable for loss by fraud, if the
Governor of the Farm Credit Administration determines that such
employee has exercised reasonable care in the circumstances, was
conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in
order.
On Apr. 19, 1943,(16) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised against the following
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 3591, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Farmers' crop production and harvesting loans: For loans to
farmers under the act of January 29, 1937 . . . Provided, That
no employee of the United States on whose certificate or
approval loans under said act of January 29, 1937, as amended,
or other acts of the same general character, are or have been
made, shall be held personally liable for any loss or
deficiency occasioned by the fraud or misrepresentation of
applicants or borrowers, if the Governor of the Farm Credit
Administration shall determine that such employee has exercised
reasonable care in the circumstances, and has complied with the
regulations of the Farm Credit Administration in executing such
certificate or giving such certificate or giving such approval.
. . .
Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fulmer: I make the point of order against the language on
page 87, beginning with line 1, down to and including line 16, that
it is legislation on an appropriation bill not authorized by law.
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point
of order is conceded.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.