[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters]
[Â§ 5. Provisions Not Within the Holman Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5334-5359]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 5. Provisions Not Within the Halman Rule

Certainty of Reduction Must Appear

Sec. 5.1 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, proposing 
    legislation which may result in a future deficiency appropriation 
    and therefore does not patently reduce expenditures, though 
    providing for a reduction in the figures of an appropriation, is 
    not in order under the Holman rule.

    On June 3, 1959,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7454), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 9714, 9715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 12, strike out ``$3,233,063,000'' and insert 
    ``$3,233,000,000, to be disbursed in such manner that the military 
    personnel, Regular Army, shall be maintained at not less than 
    900,000 during fiscal year 1960.''

[[Page 5335]]

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have just offered, 
    instead of raising the bill and adding money, reduces the amount of 
    the appropriation and is in the nature of a retrenchment. I take 
    the position that it is, first, germane to the bill, obviously. 
    And, secondly, it is obviously a retrenchment because it reduces 
    the amount of the appropriation instead of adding to it, and it 
    directs that the funds be used for the purpose of keeping the Army 
    strength or making the Army strength at 900,000. The only question 
    that would be in debate on the point of order made by my friend, 
    the gentleman from Texas, would be as to the latter provision. 
    Certainly, this amendment is germane. Secondly, I submit it is a 
    retrenchment. . . .
        . . . I submit to you, sir, in the bill itself there is a 
    provision under the general provisions thereof stating that the 
    funds in this bill cannot be used for any other purpose than those 
    declared in the bill, and no other funds can be used for that 
    purpose.
        I submit, sir, that this is a flat, and intended by me to be a 
    flat, limitation upon the Department of Defense. It permits no 
    discretion to be utilized so it can be abused. It is a flat 
    limitation upon the expenditure of funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, all limitations on the size of military personnel 
    have been suspended by Public Law 86-4, section 2, until 1963. 
    Therefore there are no limitations--ceilings or floors--in effect 
    during fiscal year 1960.
        The amendment proposed would have the effect of establishing a 
    floor as to the size of military force.
        This amendment imposes additional duties on the executive 
    branch since it would require them to maintain a specific number of 
    troops, a requirement which does not exist at the present time. The 
    amendment therefore is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This does make a reduction of $63,000 in the amount carried in 
    the bill but funds would have to be disbursed on the deficiency 
    basis which will require the appropriation of additional funds for 
    this same purpose during fiscal year 1960 which is the period 
    covered by this bill. Therefore, this is not a retrenchment as 
    provided by the Holman rule. The language itself does not show 
    retrenchment on its face. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, what I say will be a complete 
    rebuttal. The only element the gentleman brings in is the question 
    of the use of the funds. Certainly this affects the use of 
    additional funds unless the Department of Defense came in for 
    supplemental appropriations which would have to be by act of the 
    President as an affirmative act.
        The amendment is a limitation on the expenditure of funds in 
    their discretion.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        While in the opinion of the Chair this amendment does in effect 
    seek to

[[Page 5336]]

    retrench expenditures, it does by the language added impose upon 
    the executive branch a mandatory duty of maintaining personnel at a 
    figure greater than provided in the pending bill; and in the 
    opinion of the Chair constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Reduction Must Be Certain, Not Speculative

Sec. 5.2 To come within the purview of the Holman rule, it must 
    affirmatively appear that a proposition, if adopted, will retrench 
    expenditures as a definite result, not as a probable or possible 
    contingency.

    On Mar. 7, 1940,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8745), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and after argument, the Chair ruled that the provision was 
not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 2512-14, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    Bituminous Coal Division in carrying out the purposes of the 
    Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72) 
    . . . $2,187,800: Provided, That the first paragraph of subsection 
    ``(e)'' of part II of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 
    72), is amended by inserting at the end of such paragraph and 
    before the period the following: ``: Provided further, That the 
    provisions of this act shall not apply to a sale of bituminous coal 
    for the exclusive use of the United States or of any State or 
    Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or any 
    political subdivision of any of them.''
        Mr. [Andrew] Edmiston [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edmiston: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    proviso on page 8, beginning in line 7 and ending in line 14. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    believe this amendment comes under the Holman rule. Eight percent 
    of all the coal handled by this Commission will be used by the 
    Federal, State, and city governments throughout the country. About 
    35,000,000 tons of coal will be used, and it will cost the Federal, 
    State, and city governments approximately $3,850,000. It will cost 
    the Federal Government alone $1,100,000.
        The appropriation in this bill is $2,187,800 for the 
    administration of the act. It will not be necessary for the 
    Commission to handle about 8 percent of all the coal coming under 
    the Bituminous Coal Act if this amendment is agreed to. It is hard 
    to say whether or not it will save $187,000, which would be about 8 
    percent of the total amount allowed in the bill for administering 
    the act. In my opinion it will certainly save from $20,000 to 
    $100,000. If that is so, it surely is germane to the act,

[[Page 5337]]

    and it will save the different cities, States, and the Federal 
    Government over $3,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that this item is 
    legislation is specifically set out in the language between lines 7 
    and 10 on page 8 in that it proposes to add a paragraph to 
    subsection (e) of part 2 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. . . .
        The language carried here does none of those things which are 
    covered by the Holman rule. It is not in any way in order, nor does 
    it appear that the language in any way effects a saving to the 
    Treasury of the United States. Under these circumstances it is not 
    legislation in line with the Holman rule, but quite the contrary, 
    and the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The gentlemen speaking in opposition to the point of order have 
    endeavored to justify the provision appearing in the bill to which 
    reference has been made on the ground that it comes within the 
    provisions of the so-called Holman rule. . . .
        The Chair . . . invites attention to page 56 of Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives, and quotes as follows: . 
    . .

            It must affirmatively appear upon the face of the bill that 
        the proposition, if enacted, will retrench expenditures.
            A retrenchment of expenditure relied upon to bring a 
        proposition within the exception to the rule prohibiting 
        legislation on an appropriation bill must be apparent from its 
        terms, and a retrenchment conjectural or speculative in its 
        application, or requiring further legislation to effectuate, is 
        not admissible.

        The Chair also invites attention to another precedent directly 
    in point to a proper consideration of the question here presented, 
    section 1530, volume VII of Cannon's Precedents, quoting:

            The reduction of expenditure relied upon to bring a 
        proposition within the exception to the rule prohibiting 
        legislation on an appropriation bill must appear as a certain 
        and necessary result and not as a probable or possible 
        contingency.

        The language of the proviso to which the point of order is made 
    is as follows:

            Provided, That the first paragraph of subsection '(e)' of 
        part II of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 72), is 
        amended by inserting at the end of such paragraph and before 
        the period the following: ``Provided further, That the 
        provisions of this act shall not apply to a sale of bituminous 
        coal for the exclusive use of the United States or of any State 
        or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, 
        or any political subdivision of any of them.''

        It seems to the Chair that this language is legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill. The very language itself clearly shows 
    that the purpose sought to be accomplished is the amendment of 
    existing law. Therefore, as it appears so clearly that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, under the provision of the 
    rule to which the Chair has referred and based upon the previous 
    decisions and precedents here cited, the Chair feels that this 
    provision does not properly come within that provision of clause 2 
    of rule XXI, known as the Holman rule.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia as to the proviso.

[[Page 5338]]

Reduction Cannot Be Contingent on Event

Sec. 5.3 To a paragraph appropriating money for the National Bituminous 
    Coal Commission, an amendment providing that if the act 
    appropriated for is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 
    none of the money provided in the bill shall thereafter be spent 
    was held not to be in order under the Holman rule [the reduction of 
    funds not being certain] but was viewed as a limitation.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 994, 996, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses, National Bituminous Coal Commission: For 
    all necessary expenditures of the National Bituminous Coal 
    Commission in performing the duties imposed upon said Commission by 
    the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, including personal 
    services and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, contract stenographic reporting services, 
    stationery and office supplies and equipment, printing and binding, 
    and not to exceed $2,500 for newspapers, reference books, and 
    periodicals, fiscal year 1936, $400,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for obligations incurred on and 
    after September 21, 1935, including reimbursement to other 
    appropriations of the Department of the Interior for obligations 
    incurred on account of said Commission. . . .
         Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bacon: Page 22, line 11, after the 
        word ``Commission'', insert ``Provided, That if the Bituminous 
        Coal Conservation Act of 1935 is declared to be 
        unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, no 
        money herein provided shall thereafter be spent, and all money 
        herein appropriated and unexpended shall be immediately covered 
        back into the Treasury.''

         Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum: This seems to me to be legislation undertaking to 
    effect a limitation. If, of course, the Supreme Court declares the 
    act unconstitutional, expenditures under it will cease and no money 
    may thereafter be expended under the act.
        Mr. Bacon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is an amendment 
    that comes within the Holman rule, that it is a limitation saving 
    money for the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Woodrum: But it is made contingent on something that may or 
    may not happen.

[[Page 5339]]

        Mr. Bacon: Yes; it is made contingent on something happening.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, is the gentleman suggesting that the Congress 
    should hint the unconstitutionality of a law before it is passed on 
    by the Supreme Court?
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the Holman rule 
    does not necessarily apply. The Chair is of the opinion, however, 
    that the amendment is a limitation. The purport of the amendment 
    taken as a whole impresses the Chair as being a limitation.
        Mr. Woodrum: May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact 
    that the amendment means hereafter, any time in the future, any 
    appropriation that hereafter may be made, and that it is not 
    confined to the appropriation in this bill?
        The Chairman: Yes; that is the very point on which the Chair's 
    decision turns. The Chair interprets the words used in the 
    amendment to mean that it refers to the appropriation provided in 
    this bill. It would, therefore, be a limitation on the 
    appropriation here provided. The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The distinction was made in Sec. 4, supra, 
between (1) provisions which, although legislative in nature, are 
nevertheless in order under the Holman rule, and (2) provisions which 
are not legislative in nature but are, rather, in order as proper 
``limitations.'' Limitations are discussed in Sec. Sec. 64-79, infra. 
As an example of those instances in which the Holman rule is cited in 
support of an amendment but found inapplicable, the Chair relying 
instead on language of limitation, see Sec. 64.27, infra, discussing 
the ruling of July 16, 1979. At issue on that occasion was an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the use of funds therein to 
carry out any ruling of the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that 
taxpayers are not entitled to certain charitable deductions. The Chair 
first indicated that the Holman rule was inapplicable, since the 
certainty of a reduction in expenditures did not appear. But the 
amendment was held in order as a limitation, since the amendment was 
merely descriptive of an existing ruling already promulgated by that 
agency and did not require new determinations as to the applicability 
of the limitation to other categories of taxpayers.

Reduction Cannot Be Conjectural

Sec. 5.4 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that ``in 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, not to exceed $3 
    per diem in lieu of subsistence may be allowed to Indians actually 
    traveling away from their

[[Page 5340]]

    place of residence when assisting in organization work'' was held 
    to be legislation and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On May 14, 1937,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6958), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 4592, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of organizing Indian chartered corporations, 
        or other tribal organizations, in accordance with the 
        provisions of the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat., p. 986), 
        including personal services, purchase of equipment and 
        supplies, not to exceed $3,000 for printing and binding, and 
        other necessary expenses, $100,000, of which not to exceed 
        $25,000 may be used for personal services in the District of 
        Columbia: Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary of 
        the Interior, not to exceed $3 per diem in lieu of subsistence 
        may be allowed to Indians actually traveling away from their 
        place of residence when assisting in organization work.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it contains 
    legislation and changes existing law, that the provision appearing 
    on page 16, from lines 16 to 20, is legislation not authorized by 
    law, and I make the point of order against the entire paragraph. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is clearly 
    within the Holman rule. This retrenches expenditures. The Pay and 
    Subsistence Act authorizes $5 a day. This simply reduces the per 
    diem to $3 a day. Therefore I feel confident that this is within 
    the Holman rule.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any 
    authority in law for the payment of any money for Indians for 
    traveling away from their place of residence in connection with 
    this work. In any event the proviso imposes new duties upon the 
    Secretary of the Interior to determine in his discretion when funds 
    may be allowed to Indians. The chairman of the committee has not 
    cited us to any authority providing for any funds being allotted to 
    Indians for such travel. The imposition of these additional duties 
    upon the Secretary of the Interior make it clearly subject to the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair thinks that the first part of the paragraph down to the 
    proviso in line 16 on page 16 is authorized under section 9 of the 
    statute approved June 18, 1934, and, therefore, is in order. The 
    Chair thinks, however, so far as the proviso, line 16 down to the 
    word ``work'' on line 20, is concerned, that it does not appear on 
    the face of this proviso that it necessarily is a saving, and 
    therefore does not come within the Holman rule and appears to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order as to the proviso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lister Hill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language Must Show Unqualified and Certain Reduction

Sec. 5.5 Legislation proposed on an appropriation bill must

[[Page 5341]]

     indicate by its terms an unqualified reduction of expenditures, if 
    it is to be in order under the Holman rule; accordingly, a 
    paragraph in an appropriation bill proposing the continuance of a 
    temporary law which eliminated bonus payments for re-enlistment in 
    the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, was held not to be in order under 
    the Holman rule on the ground that the language did not 
    specifically and definitely show a retrenchment of expenditures.

    On Feb. 18, 1937,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriations bill (H.R. 4720), the Chairman made the following 
ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 1388, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . (A) point of order is made against this proviso appearing 
    on page 27, at line 10:

            Provided further, That section 18 of the Treasury-Post 
        Office Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1934, is hereby continued 
        in full force and effect during the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1938, and for the purpose of making such section applicable to 
        such latter fiscal year the figures ``1934'' shall be read as 
        ``1938.''

        This section clearly continues a provision of the so-called 
    Economy Act of the Seventy-third Congress enacted in 1933, which 
    eliminated bonus payments for reenlistment in certain departments 
    of the Government. This provision expired by operation of law. This 
    section provides for its reenactment or its continuance, and is, 
    therefore, legislation. The suggestion has been made that the point 
    of order should be overruled because there is a retrenchment under 
    the Holman rule.
        The Chair reads from Cannon's Precedents, volume 7, section 
    1538:

            Unless an amendment proposes legislation which will 
        retrench an expenditure with definite certainty, it is not in 
        order under the Holman rule.

        And, again, section 1542 of the same volume, which is a little 
    more clearly applicable to this particular point of order:

            In construing the Holman rule the Chair may not speculate 
        or surmise as to whether a particular provision might or might 
        not operate to retrench an expenditure. Legislation proposed on 
        an appropriation bill must indicate by its terms an unqualified 
        reduction of expenditure to fall within the exception of the 
        rule.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the showing made is not 
    definite enough to be an unqualified reduction of expenditure, 
    because it is entirely speculative as to whether there would be 
    reenlistments. The Chair, therefore, does not believe the proviso 
    comes within the provisions of the Holman rule. It is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a provision attempts reductions,

[[Page 5342]]

 qualifying words in the provision may operate to make the reductions 
uncertain. See, for example, Sec. 52.6, infra, in which an amendment 
made specified reductions in a defense appropriation bill, but added 
the qualification that the reductions were to be made ``without 
impairing national defense.'' Such a qualification makes the Holman 
rule inapplicable.

Reduction Based on Budget Estimates; Speculative and Uncertain

Sec. 5.6 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing for percentage 
    reductions in accounts carried in the bill, to be computed by 
    applying percentages to the corresponding estimates in the 
    President's budget was held to be legislation and not in order 
    under the Holman rule inasmuch as no reduction was shown on its 
    face and any reduction thereunder would be speculative.

    On May 17, 1951,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised and sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 5477, 5478, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: On 
        page 58, line 5, add a new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 410 (a) Except as hereinafter provided, reductions 
        in each appropriation . . . contained in this act are hereby 
        made in the total amount resulting from the application of the 
        percentages indicated herein to the amounts of obligations for 
        the fiscal year 1952, if any, included in the President's 
        budget estimates on which each such appropriation . . . is 
        based, for the following objects:
            ``Travel, 20 percent.
            ``Transportation of things, 10 percent. . . .''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It requires the exercise of additional 
    duties not required by any other law. Further, it is not protected 
    by the Holman rule because any retrenchment of expenditures by the 
    amendment is purely speculative, for any cuts are to be made on the 
    basis of the figures in the President's budget. You cannot look at 
    the bill and at the amendment and tell whether the amendment would 
    reduce expenditures. . . . I respectfully submit that while there 
    may be retrenchment under the Holman rule, it has to be entirely 
    apparent on the face of the amendment, rather than speculative. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not saved by that rule. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The reductions are absolutely 
    specific

[[Page 5343]]

    in every instance, and the amount to which the reduction would 
    apply is absolutely specific. Therefore, it is not speculative in 
    the slightest degree. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After very serious study on this amendment, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that this is legislation on an appropriation bill, and the 
    question then arises as to whether it is protected by the Holman 
    rule. That rule requires the legislation to make a retrenchment of 
    expenditures beyond doubt. Since this amendment operates against 
    the budget estimates rather than the amounts in the bill, the 
    question of retrenchment is speculative.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Curtis) is legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Conjectural or Speculative Reduction Not Sufficient

Sec. 5.7 Language in a general appropriation bill restricting the 
    powers of the selection boards for the Navy was held to be 
    legislation and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On Aug. 17, 1937,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the third deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
8245), a point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 9172, 9173, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Sutphin [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sutphin: Page 22, after line 10, 
        insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``That the powers and duties conferred by law or regulation 
        upon selection boards for the Navy now established or which may 
        be established during the remainder of the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1938, shall not be exercised after the date of the 
        enactment of this act and prior to July 1, 1938, and no 
        recommendation or action of any such board shall be effective 
        during the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938.''

        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 and changes existing law. . . .
        Mr. Sutphin: Mr. Chairman, I admit the amendment is 
    legislation, but respectfully submit that it is in order under 
    clause 2 of rule XXI, the so-called Holman rule.
        That rule requires that a legislative proposition in the first 
    place must be germane to the subject matter of the bill, and, if 
    germane, that it shall retrench expenditures by the reduction of 
    the number and salary of the officers of the United States, by the 
    reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the 
    Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of amounts of 
    money covered by the bill.

[[Page 5344]]

        The first requisite is that the legislation must be germane to 
    the subject matter of the bill. This is a bill, according to its 
    title, making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for 
    prior fiscal years, to provide urgent supplemental appropriations 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other purposes. 
    The truth of the matter is, the bill is very largely a bill making 
    supplemental or additional appropriations for the fiscal year 
    1938--the current fiscal year.
        Among other subdivisions is one pertaining to the Navy 
    Department. Whether there be a Navy Department subdivision or not, 
    however, or whether there be any provision under the Navy 
    Department section dealing with personnel or not, I submit that the 
    bill adds to appropriations already made by Congress for the fiscal 
    year 1938 for various governmental agencies, and provides, besides, 
    additional appropriations for such fiscal year, and that is an 
    amendment would be in order adding to an appropriation already made 
    for a purpose authorized by law (the question of germaneness would 
    not lie against such an amendment), it would be just as logical to 
    hold in order an amendment the effect of which would be to reduce 
    an appropriation already made, to wit, the appropriation ``Pay of 
    the Navy, 1938.'' The Chair is acquainted with the ruling holding 
    in order on an appropriation bill a provision repealing an 
    appropriation already made. The amendment proposed in effect 
    repeals in part an appropriation already made.
        Now, as to the expenditure-retrenchment phase, I should like to 
    point out, so as to remove any doubt, how the amendment would bring 
    about a ``reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of 
    the Treasury of the United States.''
        Section 2 of the act of July 22, 1935 (49 Stat. 487), provides 
    that except in time of war there shall not be in the line of the 
    Navy on the active list, exclusive of officers carried as 
    additional numbers, more than 58 rear admirals, 240 captains, and 
    515 commanders. Therefore it is self-evident that in order for a 
    commander to be advanced to the grade of captain there must be a 
    fewer number than 240 captains; and likewise, in order for a 
    captain to be advanced, there must be a fewer number than 58 rear 
    admirals.
        Advancement of officers of the Navy above the grade of ensign 
    is contingent upon selection for promotion by a board of naval 
    officers. There are a number of laws on the subject, but it should 
    suffice here merely to cite section 291 of title 34 of the United 
    States Code.
        On page 859 of the hearings on the naval appropriation bill for 
    the fiscal year 1938, a table appears--inserted by the Chief of the 
    Bureau of Navigation, the Personnel Bureau of the Navy Department--
    giving by fiscal years actual and estimated retirements of officers 
    owing to nonselection for promotion over the period 1934 to 1944, 
    both inclusive. As to that portion which is an estimate, I might 
    say that the appropriation for pay of the Navy for the fiscal year 
    1938 or any fiscal year is based upon estimates of the personnel 
    situation prepared by the Bureau responsible for the table to which 
    I have invited the Chair's attention.

[[Page 5345]]

        According to that table, 16 captains will be retired during the 
    fiscal year 1938 owing to nonselection. The table shows other 
    retirements, but I shall not go further in the interest of brevity 
    and clarity. The enforced elimination of those 16 captains will 
    admit of the advancement of 16 selected-for-promotion commanders, 
    which, in turn, would admit of the advancement of a like number of 
    selected lieutenant commanders.
        Those advancements, besides bestowing additional rank, will 
    occasion added expense. Under the Joint Services Pay Act of 1922 
    (sec. 1, title 37, U.S.C.), the lieutenant commanders of normal 
    service tenure would move into a higher pay period and would become 
    entitled to a higher rental allowance, while the advanced 
    commanders of normal service tenure also would move into a higher 
    pay period, but would receive a lesser subsistence allowance, 
    considerably more than offset, however, by the increase of pay.
        I might go further and say that increased rank necessitates a 
    change of station, which entails travel expense from the old to the 
    new station, including the expense of moving dependents, where 
    there are dependents. That is not conjectural in any sense. The 
    amount of the expense necessarily would be, however, because we 
    have no way of knowing either the present or new duty stations.
        So, Mr. Chairman, as to the retrenchment phase, there can be no 
    manner of doubt that the amendment will effect a substantial 
    saving. I only have cited advancements from two grades in the 
    interest of brevity and clarity. The rule does not deal with the 
    degree of saving.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Chairman, the amendment on its face does not 
    show any saving or retrenchment and it is purely speculative 
    whether or not there would be any saving. As a matter of actual 
    experience we know that if put into operation there would not be a 
    saving, and the amendment in order to be in order must show 
    positively that there is to be a saving to the United States 
    Treasury. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) the Chair is prepared to rule. 
    This amendment takes away the powers of the board now appointed for 
    promotion in the Navy. Therefore, clearly it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Furthermore, it is not shown on the face of the 
    amendment that there is any retrenchment of expenditures, and in 
    order to come within the province of the Holman rule, such 
    retrenchment must be certain and not conjectural or speculative. 
    The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sutphin) in arguing his point of 
    order has emphasized that speculative feature of his amendment, if 
    it should be adopted. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifying Construction Materials; Not Definite Reduction

Sec. 5.8 During consideration of an appropriation for continuing the 
    construction of annex buildings for the Government Printing Office, 
    a provision that the exterior construction material for one annex 
    building should be as

[[Page 5346]]

    contemplated in the original cost estimates for the project was 
    held to be legislation, and not in order under the Holman rule.

    On Jan. 17, 1938,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8947, a Treasury and Post Office Departments 
appropriation bill. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 652, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Government Printing Office, annex buildings, Washington, D.C.: 
    For continuation of construction of annex buildings for the 
    Government Printing Office, $2,500,000; and the limit of cost for 
    this project is hereby increased from $5,885,000, as authorized in 
    the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, approved 
    August 12, 1935, to $7,000,000: Provided, That the character of the 
    exterior construction material for annex building No. 3 shall be 
    that contemplated in the original cost estimates for such project.
        Mr. [Eugene B.] Crowe [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso on page 47, beginning with the 
    word 'Provided', in line 14, and extending to the end of line 17, 
    that it clearly is legislation on an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal of Kentucky: Mr. Chairman, this proviso 
    merely seeks to reduce the expenditure and is in reality, 
    therefore, a limitation on an appropriation bill and falls within 
    the rule.
        Mr. Crowe: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will permit an 
    interruption, there is nothing about the language, as I see it, 
    that limits or reduces expenditures.
        Mr. O'Neal of Kentucky. It is a limitation.
        The Chairman: (12) the Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Arthur H. Greenwood, (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]his proviso is legislation and to be in order it would 
    be necessary to show that it would effect an economy or a 
    retrenchment. This not being shown, the Chair is therefore of the 
    opinion that the proviso is subject to the point of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Reappropriation of Old Funds Not Necessarily Retrenchment; Retrenchment 
    Language Must Be Germane

Sec. 5.9 The payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum which 
    would otherwise be charged against the Treasury is not a 
    retrenchment of expenditures falling within the Holman rule 
    exception to Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
18381), a point

[[Page 5347]]

of order was raised and later sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page 16 after line 3 add a 
        new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision, 
        appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall, 
        not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, be reduced in the aggregate by not less than 
        $1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer 
        of funds previously appropriated for governmental activities 
        that the President, within the aforementioned 120 days, shall 
        have determined to be excess to the necessities of the services 
        and objects for which appropriated.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: The point of order is that the amendment goes far 
    beyond the scope of this bill and applies to funds made available 
    by other laws for which appropriations are not provided in the 
    pending measure. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Bow: Yes, I do wish to be heard, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I believe we have changed the Holman rule today by making it 
    relate to this bill. The previous precedents of the House have been 
    it must not necessarily apply to this particular bill when there is 
    a retrenchment, so we are making new precedents today.
        This is a general appropriation bill affecting various 
    agencies. Since the amendment also deals with and affects various 
    appropriations of various agencies, it is germane.
        Again, there can be no speculation as to its retrenching 
    Federal expenditures because it reduces appropriations in this 
    bill--in this bill by $1.5 billion and requires the President to 
    fund activities in this bill from previously appropriated funds 
    that are excess to the necessities of the services and objects for 
    which appropriated.
        I point out again that the Holman rule does not go along with 
    the decision suggested by the distinguished chairman of the 
    committee that additional duties are involved.
        Under the Holman rule it is a question of retrenchment of 
    expenditures.
        The legislation in this amendment is not unrelated to the 
    retrenchment of expenditures. Instead, it is directly instrumental 
    in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures. Thus, the proposed 
    retrenchment and the legislation are inseparable and must be 
    considered together.
        ``Cannon's Precedents,'' in volume VII, 1550 and 1551, holds 
    that an amendment may include such legislation as is directly 
    instrumental in accomplishing the reduction of expenditures 
    proposed. That is the precise situation with respect to this 
    pending amendment.
        Again I cite ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VII, 1511, which 
    holds that language admitted under the Holman

[[Page 5348]]

    rule is not restricted in its application to the pending bill, and 
    to the June 1, 1892, decision, to which I referred before, of the 
    Committee of the Whole and its Chairman, that an amendment was in 
    order under the Holman rule even though it changed existing law. 
    [Note: See comment concerning the 1892 decision in the introduction 
    to Sec. 4, supra.]
        I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe if this is held to be out of 
    order we will be changing the precedents and the rules of the 
    House, and we will be destroying the Holman rule.
        I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio specifies that 
    appropriations herein, as the President shall determine, shall be 
    reduced in the aggregate by not less than $1.5 billion. This 
    reduction would be achieved by authorizing and directing the 
    President to utilize previously appropriated funds for the 
    activities carried in this bill.
        The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. It 
    places additional determinations and duties on the President and 
    involves funds other than those carried in this bill.
        Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have 
    to qualify, as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the 
    Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is 
    inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
        First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum 
    which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held 
    not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule.
        Chairman Hicks, of New York, ruled to the same effect when a 
    proposition involving the Holman rule was before the House on 
    January 26, 1921.
        Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] authorizes the reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
        Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in 
    this bill and is not germane.
        With respect to the latter point and the citation that has been 
    given by the gentleman from Ohio, which is found in the precedents 
    of the House, volume VII, 1511, the Chair will note that the 
    proposition reduced the number of Army officers and provided the 
    method by which the reduction should be accomplished. It was an 
    amendment, as it appears in the citation, to a War Department 
    appropriation bill and was therefore germane in spite of whatever 
    the general proposition in the heading may have stated.
        For the reasons given, the Chair will sustain the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Texas.

Reimbursement to Treasury From Receipts

Sec. 5.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that all 
    moneys hereafter received by the United States in connection with 
    any irri

[[Page 5349]]

    gation project constructed by the federal government shall be 
    covered into the general fund until such fund has been reimbursed 
    for allocations to the project, was held to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not to come within the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.

    On Nov. 29, 1945,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the first deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 
4805), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 11192, 11193, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Total, general fund, construction, $42,765,000: Provided, That 
    all moneys hereafter received by the United States in connection 
    with any irrigation project . . . shall be covered into the general 
    fund until the general fund has been reimbursed in full for 
    allocations and appropriations made to such project from the 
    general fund. . . .
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the proviso commencing on page 30, line 15, and 
    continuing on page 31 down to the end of line 6 that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee concedes the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be 
    heard on the point of order. It is manifest that this item requires 
    that funds received shall be covered into the general fund of the 
    Treasury until the general fund has been fully reimbursed for the 
    amount that it has expended. In my opinion that is an order under 
    the Holman rule. It saves money to the Treasury on the face of the 
    document.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair thinks it is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and so holds. The point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs Shifted From Government to Private Party

Sec. 5.11 Language in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that in regard to the building of an underpass at Dupont 
    Circle, the cost of changing or removing street-railway tracks by 
    the street-railway company shall be borne by such company and 
    providing further that the company shall install other equipment at 
    its own expense, was held not to come within the provisions of the 
    Holman rule.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9181), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision, and pro

[[Page 5350]]

ceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1379, 1380, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the construction of an underpass at Dupont Circle . . . 
    $480,000: Provided, That the cost of the necessary changes, 
    removal, construction, and reconstruction of the street-railway 
    tracks and appurtenances, to be performed by the street-railway 
    company, including paving within the streetcar track area, shall be 
    borne by the street-railway company owning or operating over the 
    existing tracks: Provided further, That the funds herein 
    appropriated shall be available for construction, at time of 
    roadway paving, of suitable streetcar-loading platforms, and the 
    street-railway company shall, at its own expense, furnish and 
    install approved lighting equipment, signs, and so forth, in 
    accordance with plans to be approved by the Public Utilities 
    Commission and shall, at its own expense, operate and maintain such 
    equipment.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order to the proviso on page 76, line 7, down to and 
    including the word ``equipment'' in line 20. It is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I hope 
    the gentleman will reserve the point of order so that I can ask him 
    a question.
        Mr. Palmisano: I reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, the provision to which the gentleman 
    makes the point of order imposes upon the street-railway company a 
    part of the expense of carrying on this work, and with the 
    elimination of the language that the gentleman seeks to eliminate 
    it means that the cost of the whole work will be imposed upon the 
    District of Columbia. I am certain that the gentleman does not want 
    to do that, because the streetcar company will be benefited by this 
    underpass. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair has examined carefully the language of 
    the bill to which the point of order is directed. The Holman rule 
    could not possibly apply in this case because the language does not 
    retrench expenditures in one of the methods set forth in the rule, 
    but is legislative in character and, therefore, prohibited in an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authority to Terminate Employment

Sec. 5.12 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 an appropriation bill and not to be within the 
    provisions of the Holman rule.

[[Page 5351]]

    On Apr. 20, 1950,(19) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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: (20) . . . 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction in Existing Contract Authorization

Sec. 5.13 Language in an appropriation bill seeking to change a 
    contract authorization contained in a previous appropriation bill 
    passed by another Congress was held to be legislation and not a 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5352]]

Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation bill for fiscal 
year 1948 (H.R. 3123), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve the point of order first in order that I may get some 
    information before I make the point of order finally, and that is 
    with respect to the language which appears at the bottom of page 
    51, which reads as follows:

            Provided further, That the contract authorization of 
        $15,000,000 contained in the Interior Department Appropriation 
        Act, fiscal year 1946, is hereby reduced to $9,750,000.

        My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that that is legislation 
    amending a previous act and not within the purview of this bill 
    making appropriations for fiscal 1948. It constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill for it destroys existing legislation.
        Before I make the point of order, may I ask the chairman of the 
    committee what the reason is for carrying that language? I feel 
    that the development of the synthetic liquid fuel program is very 
    essential to national defense and is probably the cheapest money we 
    can spend in that direction.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: The purpose of this language is 
    to limit the amount to be expended further on this project to the 
    authorization provided in the basic act. In other words, the amount 
    remaining after this appropriation will be the amount of 
    $9,750,000, and will tie the entire appropriation to the basic 
    authorization.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: What was the reason, then, for the 
    increase of the authorization to $15,000,000 in the act of 1946 and 
    establishment of contract authority?
        Mr. Jones of Ohio: That was to tie the appropriations to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, having introduced a 
    bill which seeks to accomplish about that very thing, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order and do make the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Ohio 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the only purpose of the 
    language is to limit the amount appropriated over all to the 
    $30,000,000 authorization. It seems to me it is merely a 
    restatement of the basic law and clearly in order under the Holman 
    rule because on its face it saves money.
        The Chairman: This language changes a contract authorization 
    contained in a previous appropriation bill passed by another 
    Congress. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Use of Total Appropriation; Language Precluding Future Supplemental 
    Funding

Sec. 5.14 A provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
    providing that the appropriation for public assistance shall be so 
    administered as to constitute the total amount that will be 
    utilized during such fiscal year

[[Page 5353]]

    for such purposes was held to place additional duties upon the 
    commissioners and therefore legislation on an appropriation bill 
    and not in order.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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. [Gerald R.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso appearing on page 58, line 2, 
    after the word ``Columbia' and ending on line 7 with the word 
    ``purposes.''
        I make the point of order that this proviso is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language about which the gentleman complains reads as follows:

            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.

        Unquestionably that is a limitation upon an appropriation and 
    therefore comes within the rules of the House. The object is to 
    save money, and the provision shows on its face that it will save 
    money. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair has examined the 
    language employed very carefully, and if I am correct in my 
    construction of that language, it seeks to impose an additional 
    burden upon

[[Page 5354]]

    the Commissioners who are charged with the duty of administering 
    the fund sought to be appropriated. In addition to that, there is 
    nothing apparent in the language of the section that will result in 
    a saving. The inference that we have from the statement of the 
    chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations is not sufficient to 
    bring it within the rule that a saving will be effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the point of order 
    is well taken and so rules.

Nongermane Amendment; Unrelated to Funding in Bill

Sec. 5.15 To a bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies, an 
    amendment proposing to change existing law by repealing that part 
    of a retirement act relating to the President, Vice President, and 
    Members of Congress, was held not germane and not in order under 
    the Holman rule.

    On Feb. 9, 1942,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Defense Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6548), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 1157, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. For a discussion of the 
        germaneness rule generally, see Ch. 28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: 
    Page 49, after line 2, add a new section, as follows:

        ``Sec. 303. Public Law No. 411, Seventy-seventh Congress, 
    chapter 16, second session, be, and is hereby, amended by adding at 
    the end thereof the following: `Provided, That nothing in this act 
    shall be construed to include within its provisions of the Civil 
    Service Retirement Act the President, Vice President, members of 
    the Senate, and the House of Representatives.' ''
        And on page 49, line 3, strike out ``303'' and insert ``304.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and is out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. McLean: I was laying the foundation for my argument.
        If the Chair will refer to page 8 of this bill, he will there 
    find the section to which I have referred suspending a provision of 
    the Selective Service Act. That is clearly legislation on this 
    appropriation bill and comparable to my amendment. There are 
    exceptions to the rule that an appropriation bill cannot carry 
    legislation, and I call the Chair's attention to the Holman rule. 
    That rule provides that if the legislation would result in the 
    saving of expenditures it is not subject to a point of order. In 
    the Fifty-second Congress it was decided--

            An amendment to the pension appropriation bill tending to 
        increase the class of persons prohibited from the benefit of 
        the pension laws is in order because its effect would be to 
        reduce expenditures.

        The amendment which I have introduced would reduce 
    expenditures. It

[[Page 5355]]

    excludes from the benefits of the Civil Service Retirement Act the 
    President, the Vice President, the Senators, and Members of the 
    House of Representatives.
        This is the first opportunity we have had to correct our 
    blunder, and we ought to take advantage of it.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is 
    clearly not germane to the bill under consideration. If it were 
    germane it would be legislation on an appropriation bill. It does 
    not in any way retrench expenditures under this bill. For two very 
    good reasons, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Denial of Status to Aliens Not Holman Retrenchment

Sec. 5.16 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,(7) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the War Department civil functions 
appropriations, a point of order was raised against a provision, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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. 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)--

[[Page 5356]]

        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 precedent 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: (8) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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.

Holman Exception Distinguished From Limitation

Sec. 5.17 The Holman rule is applicable only where language in a 
    general appropriation bill ``changes existing law'' and also has 
    the direct effect of retrenching the amount of funds in the bill; 
    it is not applicable where the language does not constitute 
    legislation but is merely a negative limitation citing, without 
    changing, the applicability of existing law.

    On June 18, 1980,(9) an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill denying availability of funds therein to pay certain 
benefits to persons simultaneously entitled by law to other benefits, 
or in

[[Page 5357]]

amounts in excess of those other entitlement levels, was held in order 
as a limitation, since existing law already required executive 
officials to determine whether and to what extent recipients of funds 
contained in the bill were also receiving those other entitlement 
benefits. In the course of its ruling, the Chair stated that the Holman 
rule was not applicable to the provision in question. The proceedings 
are discussed in Sec. 52.36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 15354-56, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetical ``Net'' Saving

Sec. 5.18 Where existing law directed a federal official to provide for 
    the sale of certain government property to private organizations in 
    ``necessary'' amounts, but did not require that all such property 
    shall be distributed by sale, an amendment to a general 
    appropriation bill providing that no such property shall be 
    withheld from distribution from qualifying purchasers was ruled out 
    as legislation requiring disposal of all property and restricting 
    discretionary authority to determine ``necessary'' amounts and not 
    constituting (as required by the Holman rule) a certain 
    retrenchment of funds in the bill.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Defense appropriation bill 
(H.R. 13635), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 24707, 24708, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: On 
        page 8, after line 10, add the following new section:
            None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
        in this Act shall be obligated or expended for salaries or 
        expenses during the current fiscal year in connection with the 
        demilitarization of any arms as advertised by the Department of 
        Defense, Defense Logistics Agency sale number 31-8118 issued 
        January 24, 1978, and listed as ``no longer needed by the 
        Federal Government'' and that such arms shall not be withheld 
        from distribution to purchasers who qualify for purchase of 
        said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 
        4308. . . .

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order on the amendment on the ground that I believe that 
    it is legislation within a general appropriation bill and, 
    therefore, violates the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. John T. Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple limitation 
    amendment. It merely limits the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    continue to carry out existing law. It does not provide any new 
    law. It simply says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry 
    out the prevailing, existing law. . . .

[[Page 5358]]

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, rule 21, clause 
    2, of the Rules of the House (House Rules and Manual pages 426-427) 
    specifies that an amendment to an appropriation bill is in order if 
    it meets certain tests, such as:
        First. It must be germane;
        Second. It must be negative in nature;
        Third. It must show retrenchment on its face;
        Fourth. It must impose no additional or affirmative duties or 
    amend existing law.
        First. (The amendment) is germane. As the amendment applies to 
    the distribution of arms by the Defense Logistics Agency, it is not 
    exclusively an Army of civilian marksmanship amendment, so should 
    not be placed elsewhere in the bill. . . .
        Second. It is negative in nature. It limits expenditure of 
    funds by the Defense Department by prohibiting the destruction and 
    scrapping of arms which qualify for sale through the civilian 
    marksmanship program, which is a division of the executive created 
    by statute.
        Third. It shows retrenchment on its face. Retrenchment is 
    demonstrated in that the Department of Defense is prohibited from 
    expending funds to destroy surplus military arms, and that the arms 
    previously earmarked for destruction will be made available in 
    accordance with existing statute. . . . The House, in adding this 
    amendment, will secure additional funds for the Treasury which the 
    General Accounting Office has determined is adequate to pay costs 
    of handling the arms. For example, the M-1 rifles are to be sold at 
    a cost of $110 each. These are the arms most utilized by the 
    civilian marksmanship program. The Defense Department will not be 
    required to spend additional funds to process the sale of 
    additional arms. . . .
        Fourth. [The amendment] does not impose additional or 
    affirmative duties or amend existing law. . . .
        Regulations issued . . . AR 725-1 and AR 920-20 provide for the 
    issuance of arms by application and qualification through the 
    Director of Civilian Marksmanship. The DCM shall then submit sale 
    orders for the Armament Readiness Military Command (ARCOM) to fill 
    the requests of these qualified civilians. Thus, the amendment 
    simply requires the performance of duties already imposed by the 
    Army's own regulation. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I particularly call attention of the 
    Chair to the second half of the amendment, which imposes an 
    affirmative duty on the Secretary, saying that such arms shall not 
    be withheld from distribution to purchasers who qualify for 
    purchase of said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, 
    section 4308.
        Under the general existing law, there are all kinds of 
    discretions that are allowed to the Secretary to decide whether or 
    not such arms shall be distributed. Under this amendment, the 
    existing law is to be changed and those arms may not be withheld. 
    The practical purpose is to turn lose 400,000 to 500,000 rifles 
    into the body politic.
        But the parliamentary effect is clearly to change the existing 
    law under which the Secretary can exercise all kinds of discretion 
    in deciding whether or not those arms will be distributed.

[[Page 5359]]

    Under this amendment it not only limits the fact that the funds may 
    be obligated but it specifically goes on to affirmatively direct 
    the Secretary to distribute such arms under title X, which is an 
    affirmative obligation, which is exactly the kind of obligation the 
    rules prohibit, and I renew my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the section to which the gentleman refers, 
    title 10, United States Code, section 4308, and is of the opinion 
    that it does not require that all firearms be distributed to 
    qualified purchasers. The Chair further feels that while the first 
    part of the amendment is a limitation, the last part of the 
    amendment is a curtailment of Executive discretion, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.