[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 44. Congressional Salaries and Allowances]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5943-5951]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 44.  Congressional Salaries and Allowances

Congressional Salaries

Sec. 44.1 For a limiting amendment to a general appropriation bill, a 
    substitute amendment increasing the salary of Members of Congress 
    was conceded and held to be subject to a point of order.

    On Apr. 22, 1953,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4663), a point of order was raised against a substitute for the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 3608, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John Bell] Williams of Mississippi: 
    Page 49,

[[Page 5944]]

    after section 303, add a new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 304. No part of the funds appropriated in this act shall 
    be used to pay the salary of any employee provided for in this 
    appropriation at a rate in excess of the salary now paid to Members 
    of the Senate and House of Representatives: Provided, however, That 
    such limitations shall not apply to the office of the President of 
    the United States.''. . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Mississippi:
            ``The salaries of Members of the Congress after the 
        enactment of this bill shall be $22,500 per year.''

        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Mr. McCormack: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jackson E. Betts (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.2 An appropriation for ``additional salaries'' at a specified 
    annual rate of Senators, Representatives in Congress, Delegates, 
    and Commissioners was held to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and not in order.

    On Dec. 6, 1944,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 8936, 8937), 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For payment to the widow of Hampton P. Fulmer, late a 
    Representative from the State of South Carolina, $10,000 to be 
    disbursed by the Sergeant at Arms of the House.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler, of New York: On page 2, 
        after line 6, insert a new paragraph as follows:
            ``For additional salaries at the additional rate of $2,500 
        per annum, from January 1, 1945, to June 30, 1945, of Senators, 
        Representatives in Congress, Delegates from Territories, the 
        Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from the Philippine Islands, $668,750.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret to 
    have to make a point of order against the amendment, that there is 
    no legislation authorizing such an appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) . . . The Chair sustains the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in Members' Clerk-hire

Sec. 44.3 To a legislative appropriation bill, an amendment

[[Page 5945]]

    providing that the clerk-hire roll of each Member be increased by 
    one employee was ruled out as legislation.

    On June 27, 1968,(2) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
18038), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 19093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. H. Res. 416, 89th 
        Congress, authorized Members to employ a student intern on a 
        temporary basis in the summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 6, line 20, strike 
        out the period, insert a colon, and add the following: 
        ``Provided, That each Member's clerk-hire roll may be increased 
        by one employee for the purposes and to the extent authorized 
        in House Resolution 416, 89th Congress.''

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Alabama will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Ryan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I would argue that the amendment is in order because the 
    amendment relates to the purposes of House Resolution 416, which is 
    referred to in the bill, and clearly, if lines 17 to 20 were in 
    order and were included in the bill, then the proviso which my 
    amendment adds to those lines is equally in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has had 
    the opportunity to study the amendment of the gentleman from New 
    York and the Chair finds the question of one additional employee 
    is, under the subject of clerk hire, within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on House Administration. The amendment of the gentleman 
    from New York would add legislation to an appropriation measure and 
    therefore (be) in violation of clause 2, rule XXI, of the House of 
    Representatives. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Staff Salaries--Making House Resolutions Permanent Law

Sec. 44.4 A provision in a supplemental appropriation bill declaring 
    that certain House resolutions such as those relating to Members' 
    clerk-hire, should be the permanent law with respect to their 
    subject matter, was ruled out as legislation.

    On Sept. 22, 1964,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appro

[[Page 5946]]

priation bill (H.R. 12633), a point of order was raised against the 
following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 22431, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Contingent Expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Miscellaneous items'', 
        $92,000, for payment to the Architect of the Capitol in 
        accordance with section 208 of the Act approved October 9, 1940 
        (Public Law 812).
            The provisions relating to allowances, positions, and 
        salaries carried in House Resolutions 294, 831, and 832, 
        Eighty-eighth Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
        thereto.

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language appearing on page 12, lines 3 to 6, 
    reading as follows:

            The provisions relating to allowances, positions, and 
        salaries carried in House Resolutions 294, 831, and 832, 
        Eighty-eighth Congress, shall be the permanent law with respect 
        thereto.

        I make the point of order particularly with respect to lines 5 
    and 6, on the ground that this is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, if I may be 
    heard on the point of order, this is what has been in every 
    legislative bill that has come before the House for a great many 
    years. It is an established rule that the House has always 
    followed. It seems to me that the committee is only following here 
    what the House has always had as the procedure it has followed in 
    this connection.

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What the gentleman from Oklahoma says is true, that this has 
    been the practice of the House for a number of years, but on its 
    face this is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

-- Increasing Salaries

Sec. 44.5 To the legislative appropriation bill an amendment proposing 
    that each Member may pay to one employee $8,000 basic compensation 
    in lieu of $6,000 basic, as provided by law, was held to be 
    legislation and not in order.

    On July 1, 1955,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
7117), the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9815, 9816, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              members' clerk hire

            For clerk hire, necessarily employed by each Member in the 
        discharge of his official and representative duties, which 
        shall be at the basic rate of $15,000 per annum: Provided, That 
        no salary shall be fixed hereunder at a basic rate in excess of 
        $6,000 per annum; $11,500,000.

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Page 4, line 
        15, after ``of'' strike out ``$6,000'' and insert ``$8,000.''

[[Page 5947]]

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell (of Arkansas): Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. There is no authorization for this proposal. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Wilson] would change 
    existing law by increasing the amount provided in the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken and sustains 
    the point of order.

Position Titles Changed

Sec. 44.6 To a provision in an appropriation bill for clerk-hire for 
    Members and Delegates, an amendment proposing to designate such 
    clerks as ``secretaries'' was held to constitute a change in 
    existing law.

    On May 15, 1941,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
4576), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 4137, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       clerk hire, members and delegates

            For clerk hire necessarily employed by each Member and 
        Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, in 
        the discharge of his official and representative duties, in 
        accordance with the act entitled ``An act to fix the 
        compensation of officers and employees of the legislative 
        branch of the Government,'' approved June 20, 1929, as amended 
        by the act of July 25, 1939, $2,847,000.

        Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dondero: On page 21, line 12, 
        strike out ``clerk hire'' and insert ``secretaries to,'' and on 
        page 21 in line 13, strike out ``clerk hire'' and insert 
        ``allowance for secretaries.''. . .

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the 
    point of order, and I may state that the ground of the point of 
    order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In view of the fact that in the basic law the employees in the 
    offices mentioned are referred to as clerks and in view of the fact 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Dondero] would change existing law and would therefore be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, it is the opinion of the 
    Chair that the amendment is clearly out of order, and the Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Office Allowances

Sec. 44.7 Language in an appropriation bill increasing Mem

[[Page 5948]]

    bers' telegraph, stationery, and telephone allowances an additional 
    $300 was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    held not in order.

    On May 22, 1950,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a deficiency appropriation bill (H.R. 8567), 
the following points of order were raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 7416, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner (of Kansas): Mr. Chairman, against the 
    language on page 4, lines 23 to 36, inclusive, reading:

            For an additional amount for telegraph and telephone 
        service, including an additional amount of $300 for each 
        Representative, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from 
        Puerto Rico, $131,400.

        I make the point of order that there is no legislative 
    authority for it.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from North 
    Carolina desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Stationery (revolving fund): For an additional amount for 
        stationery, second session, Eighty-first Congress, including an 
        additional stationery allowance of $300 for each 
        Representative, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from 
        Puerto Rico, $131,400, to remain available until expended.

        Mr. Scrivner: Mr. Chairman, against the language on page 5, 
    lines 7 to 11, inclusive, reading:

            Stationery (revolving fund): For an additional amount of 
        stationery . . . $131,400 . . . .

        I make the point of order that there is no legislation 
    providing for the expenditure.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Carolina desire to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Kerr: The point of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Tax Treatment of Travel Expenses

Sec. 44.8 To a provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating 
    funds for expenses of Members, an amendment seeking to amend 
    Internal Revenue Code provisions affecting Members was held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not germane thereto.

    On May 10, 1945,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
3109), a point of

[[Page 5949]]

order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 4451-53, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whittington: Page 15, strike out 
        all of line 25, and on page 16 all of lines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
        down to and including the word ``installments'' in line 5, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``Section 23 (a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
        (relating to deductibility of trade and business expenses) is 
        amended by inserting at the end thereof a new sentence as 
        follows: `For the purposes of this chapter, in the case of an 
        individual holding an office as a Member of the Congress of the 
        United States of any State or Territory, his home shall be 
        considered to be his place of residence within the State or 
        Territory from which he is such a member, but the deduction 
        allowable for this taxable year by reason of this sentence 
        shall in no event exceed $2,500, and shall be applicable only 
        with respect to the taxable years after December 31, 1944.' ''

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. I make the same argument on the 
    point of order that I made on the last amendment offered by the 
    gentleman, namely, that that part of his amendment which says his 
    home shall be his place of residence within the State or Territory, 
    might affect provisions of law far beyond anything contemplated in 
    this bill and is plainly legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending appropriation bill contains a provision that would 
    allow Members of Congress a sum not exceeding $2,500 to pay 
    expenses. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    would constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, legislation 
    which comes within the province of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane to 
    the pending paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Procedure for Employment of Committee Staff

Sec. 44.9 An amendment to a general appropriation bill, changing the 
    procedure for the employment of committee staff personnel and in 
    effect altering the method of staff selection specified in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Apr. 11, 1962,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative appropriation bill (H.R. 
11151), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 6353, 6354, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick D.] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 5950]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Schwengel: On page 3, strike 
        lines 2 and 3 and insert ``For committee employees, $2,450,000: 
        Provided, That at least $747,000 or so much thereof as may be 
        necessary to carry out the provisions of the House rules shall 
        be available only for the payment of salaries of employees 
        appointed at the request of a majority of the minority members 
        of the committee.''; and on page 4, line 16, delete 
        ``$600,000'' and insert ``and for committee employees' 
        salaries, $1,050,000.''; and on page 6, line 8, change the 
        period to a colon and add: ``Provided, That $880,500 thereof 
        shall be available only for payment of salaries of employees 
        appointed at the request of a majority of the minority members 
        of the committees.'' . . .

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. While it appears to be a 
    limitation it actually, in effect, is legislation. The Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946 and the rules of the House set out how 
    the committees and their staffs are to be organized and appointed. 
    The effect of this amendment, it seems to me, would be to change 
    that. It would have the effect of making a legislative change. I 
    think it is obviously legislation on an appropriation bill and that 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Schwengel: With the assurance of a distinguished Member on 
    the other side, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair has studied the 
    amendment and believes it would provide a new method of hiring 
    personnel, and therefore would affect the Reorganization Act and 
    the rules thereunder. It is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring New Committee Regulations Concerning Allowance

Sec. 44.10 It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    require a congressional committee to promulgate regulations to 
    limit the use of an appropriation; an amendment to the legislative 
    branch general appropriation bill requiring the Committee on House 
    Administration to promulgate rules to limit the amount of official 
    mail sent by Members with the funds appropriated in the bill was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On June 13, 1979,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4390), a point of order was sustained against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14670, 14671, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates reads as 
    follows:

[[Page 5951]]

                              Official Mail Costs

            For expenses necessary for official mail costs, 
        $70,707,000, to be disbursed by the Clerk of the House, to be 
        available immediately on enactment of this Act.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 12, line 3, strike out 
        ``$70,707,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$64,994,000''.
            Page 12, line 4, after the period, insert the following: 
        ``The Committee on House Administration shall set forth rules 
        to uniformly limit the amount of official mail which may be 
        sent by Members of the House with the use of funds appropriated 
        under this paragraph.''. . .

        Mr. [Adam] Benjamin [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I would maintain that the gentleman's amendment 
    is in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, since it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It establishes law where none exists. . .
        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, the amendment speaks to the amount of 
    dollars that would be appropriated for this particular item, and 
    then it places restrictions on the use of those dollars. Under 
    those circumstances, I believe the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (17) The amendment clearly requires 
    action by the Committee on House Administration and, therefore, is 
    legislating in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.