[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 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.