Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. JENNINGS. That was the special delivery and air mail stamps.

Mr. ANDREWS. You do not seem to suggest the resolution be made permanent law; is that correct?

Mr. JENNINGS. I think we have already asked for that.

Mr. ANDREWS. The resolution I believe was effective with the beginning of the present session. Are the first session costs being charged to the contingent fund?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Looking at the schedule at the bottom of page 48 of the print, was each item listed there affected by House Resolution 1003? Apparently each item was, but you do not seem to refer to it except on the last three items. The first four items were increased also.

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. The resolution said the officers and the Members.

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would insert in the record at this point the Clerk's note at the bottom of page 48.

(The note follows:) CLERK'S NOTE.—Beginning with first session, 86th Congress, stamp allowance was changed from fiscal year to session basis, resulting in appropriation in fiscal 1959 of the 1959 fiscal allowance (available in 2d sess., 85th Cong.), and the allowance for the first session, 86th Congress fiscal year 1964 (in Foreign Aid Act), appropriation includes amount for added $100 for each of the two sessions of 88th Congress, as authorized by House Resolution 532, 88th.

House Resolution 1003, agreed to December 14, 1967 (and effective Jan. 3, 1968), carried additional allowances for Members, the leaders, and the fonofficers who previously have had stamp allowances.

Mr. ANDREWS. Any questions?
Mr. LANGEN. No questions.
Mr. ANDREWS. Proceed.

REVISION OF THE LAWS Mr. JENNINGS. For the preparation and editing of the laws, as authorized by the act approved May 29, 1928 (1 U.S.C. 59), we estimate for the fiscal year 1969, $29,260; compared with $28,000 appropriated for 1968, or an increase of $1,260.

We are requesting this increase to carry out the provisions of the Pay Act of 1967.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ANDREWS. How many people are involved in this work? Mr. LIVINGSTON. In this appropriation, Mr. Zinn, the counsel, is the only one involved.

Mr. ANDREWs. Proceed.

SPEAKER'S AUTOMOBILE Mr. JENNINGS. For the purchase, exchange, driving, maintenance, repair, and operation of an automobile for the Speaker, $13,585, compared with $13,000 appropriated for 1968, or an increase of $585.

We are requesting this increase to carry out the provisions of the Pay Act of 1967.

17937 l: 116. I will
litus 1966 1967 1968, as of

Appropriation.......
Estimate..........

$12, 530.00
12 375.63

154.37

$13, 070.00
12.472.43

597.57

$13,000.00

8.293. 58 4,706. 42

Balance available....

Mr. ANDREWS. Are you planning a new car for the Speaker or the same one?

Mr. JENNINGS. This is on a lease basis.

Mr. ANDREWS. This figure of $13,585 includes the salary of the driver?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes; and the operation...
Mr. ANDREWS. Operation, maintenance, and everything?
Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.
Mr. ANDREWS. All right, the next item.

MAJORITY LEADER'S AUTOMOBILE Mr. JENNINGS. For the purchase, exchange, driving, maintenance, repair, and operation of an automobile for the majority leader of the House for the fiscal year 1969, we are requesting $13,585, compared with $13,000 appropriated for 1968, or an increase of $585.

We are requesting this increase to carry out the provisions of the Pay Act of 1967.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ANDREWS. That, too, includes the salary of the driver?
Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. All right, the next item.

MINORITY LEADER'S AUTOMOBILE Mr. JENNINGS. For the purchase, exchange, driving, maintenance, repair, and operation of an automobile for the minority leader of the House, $13,585, compared with $13,000 appropriated for 1968, or an increase of $585.

We are requesting this increase to carry out the provisions of the pay act of 1967.

[blocks in formation]

Appropriation........
Expenditure..

$12,530.00
12,079.35

$13,070.00
12,875. 83

$13,000.00

450.65

8,450. 49 4,549.51

Balance available

......

194. 17

Mr. ANDREWS. The next item.

NEW EDITION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE Mr. JENNINGS. For preparation of a new edition of the District of Columbia Code, $75,000, to remain available until expended, and to be expended under the direction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ANDREWS. I take it this item was submitted at the request of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is this a request that is renewed every other year?
Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. How much of the $100,000 appropriated for 1967 remains unexpended ?

Mr. JENNINGS. As of February 29 we had a balance of $31,284.90. Mr. ANDREWS. Will you supply a breakdown of the amounts paid from the 1967 appropriation and the firms or persons who were paid!

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. I have it right here. Mr. ANDREWS. Supply it for the record. (The information follows:)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you have a statement on the basis of this $75,000! I note it is down by $25,000 from the amount appropriated in 1963, and the same amount was appropriated in 1967. We want something in the record to show the basis for this figure.

Mr. JENNINGS. The request from the Judiciary Committee is what I base it on. If it had been up it could have been $150,000. Mr. ANDREWS. Put something in the record.

(Clerk's note.—The following statement in explanation of the need for the $75,000 was submitted by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary :)

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, CHAIRMAX,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, I want to expre our appreciation of this opportunity to present to you our justification for request for an appropriation of $75,000 to enable us to go forward with or important duty of codifying the general and permanent laws relating to the District of Columbia.

The Committee on the Judiciary is charged by law with the function of preparing new editions and supplements of the District of Columbia Code, as well as the United States Code. This function, although little publicized, is extremely important for the Congress, the courts, the administrative agencies, the legal profession, and the public generally. The code is the only authoritative statement of the present status of the laws relating to the District, I should like to point out that we are now engaged in a comprehensive program of revising that code.

There has been no complete revision of the District of Columbia Code since 1901. In 1929 Congress adopted a so-called Code of Laws for the District of Columbia, which like the 1926 edition of the United States Code, was merely prima facie evidence of the law. The 1929 code was rearranged and reedited in 1940, and new editions were published at the end of the 81st, 86th, and 89th Congresses.

We have a most interesting situation here in the District of Columbia. By virtue of a 1901 act of Congress, all British statutes in force in Maryland on February 27, 1801, remained in force in the District of Columbia except insofar as they are inconsistent with or replaced with subsequent legislation of Congress. As a result there are included in the District of Columbia Code dozens of British statutes dating back as far as the 13th century. It is about time that the District of Columbia is given a modern code.

We completed the revision of part II, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure,” consisting of titles 11 to 17, which was enacted by Public Law 88–241. We also completed the revision of part III, "Decedents' Estates and Fiduciary Relations," consisting of titles 18 to 22, which was enacted by Públic Law 89-183. Because of the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, by Public Law 88–243, we also prepared a revision of title 28, which was enacted by Public Law 88-508.

We are now completing work on a draft of a revision of part I, consisting of the first 10 titles relating to the government of the District Reorganization Plan No. 3 affected directly or indirectly more than 500 sections of those 10 titles. The abolishment of the old Board of Commissioners and the creation of the new Office of Commissioner have to be reflected in the code. The establishment of the Council also has to be reflected. We believe this is the time to codify and enact those titles--without substantive change, of course.

When the first 10 titles are enacted there will be a total of 21 out of the 49 titles comprising the code that will have been enacted. This will leave 28 further titles to be enacted. Because of the existence of the commission to revise the criminal laws we do not plan to do any work at this time on part II, consisting of titles 21-24, relating to crimes and criminal procedure. However, we are anxious to proceed immediately with the codifying of laws in part V, consisting of titles 25-49, relating to general matters. These are the titles with which the civil courts and the bar of the District of Columbia are most deeply concerned from day to day.

It is most appropriate that the laws relating to the Capital City of our great Nation should be systematically codified and published for use by the Congress, the bench and bar, and the public. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to revise and codify the entire body of law at one time. Our approach of codifying the laws, part by part, is the most realistic. Since we are doing the work in this fashion our request is for only $75,000 to enable us to continue with this project.

AUGUST 28, 1967. Hon. W. PAT JENNINGS, Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. JENNINGS: Thank you for your letter of August 14, regarding the estimates for the Legislative Appropriation Act of 1969.

Will you kindly include an estimate for the annual recurring item in the amount of $28,000 for revision of the laws.

I shall also appreciate it if you will include an item of $75,000 for the preparation of the District of Columbia Code to remain available until expended.

This item is not an annual item but is necessary in connection with our work of preparing new editions of the code and in drafting bills to enact separate titles of the code. Sincerely yours,

EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. All right, the next item.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Mr. JENNINGS. The next paragraph as appearing in the committee print relating increase and additional compensation is continuing language in order to protect each paragraph within the bill from which salaries may be paid. Such salaries shall be computed at basic rates as authorized by law, plus increased or additional compensation, as provided by the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended by the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946, the Postal Rate Revision and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1947, the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1950, the Classified Pay Act of 1951, the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1955, the Legislative Appropriations Act of 1956, the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1958, the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1960, the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964, the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1965, the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1966, and the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967.

NUMBER OF PAY ACTS SINCE 1945

Mr. ANDREWS. Could you tell me if each of these acts represents an increase in pay of Federal employees?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. These are no reductions.
Mr. ANDREWS. How many acts?
Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; there are 14.

Mr. ANDREWS. Since 1945 we have had 14 Federal pay increase acts, is that right?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Could you have someone on your staff come up with a figure of what the total amount of pay increases amounts to and supply it for the record, or can't you do that?

Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir. The only thing we could do would be to show the percentage.

Mr. ANDREWS. All right, put the percentage in the record, and the percentage would be true throughout the Government? Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, sir; in most cases. Mr. JENNINGS. There could be some differential.

« PreviousContinue »