Page images

Pub. Law 89-90 79 STAT. 280.

- 16

July 27, 1965

States: Provided, That this appropriation shall be available to reimburse the Department of State for medical services rendered to employees of the Library of Congress stationed abroad.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Appropriations in this Act available to the Library of Congress for salaries shall be available for expenses of investigating the loyalty of Library employees; special and temporary services (including employees engaged by the day or hour or in piècework); and services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a).

Not to exceed ten positions in the Library of Congress may be exempt from the provisions of appropriation Acts concerning the employ: ment of aliens during the current fiscal year, but the Librarian shall not make any appointment to any such position until he has ascertained that he cannot secure for such appointments a person in any of the categories specified in such provisions who possesses the special qualifications for the particular position and also otherwise meets the general requirements for employment in the Library of Congress.

60 Stat. 810.



49 Stat. 1546.

49 Stat. 502; 67 Stat. 3883 77 Stat. 343; 56 Stat, 1045.

For authorized printing and binding for the Congress; for printing and binding for the Architect of the Capitol; expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthiy and session index to the Congressional Record; as authorized by_law (44 U.S.C. 182); printing, binding, and distribution of the Federal Register (including the Code of Federal Regulations) as authorized by law (44 U.S.C. 309, 311, 311a); and printing and binding of Government publications authorized by law to be distributed without charye to the recipients; $20,500,000 : Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for printing and binding part 2 of the annual report of the Secretary of Agriculture (known as the Yearbook of Agriculture) : Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available for the payment of obligations incurred under the appropriations for similar purposes for preceding

fiscal years.



43 Stat. 658.

For necessary expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents, including compensation of all employees in accordance with the Act entitled "An Act to regulate and fix rates of pay for employees and officers of the Government Printing Office", approved June 7, 1924 (44 U.S.C. 40); travel expenses (not to exceed $1,500); price lists and bibliographies; repairs to buildings, elevators, and machinery; and supplying books to depository libraries; $6,829,000: Provided, That $200,000 of this appropriation shall be apportioned for use pursuant to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 665), with the approval of the Public Printer, only to the extent necesJuly 27, 1965

- 17 -
Pub. Law 89-90

79 STAT. 281.
sary to provide for expenses (excluding permanent personal services)
for workload increases not anticipated in the budget estimates and
which cannot be provided for by normal budgetary adjustments.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE REVOLVING FUND During the current fiscal year the Government Printing Office revolving fund shall be available for the hire of one passenger motor vehicle and for the purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for replacement only.


SEC. 102. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used for the maintenance or care of private vehicles.

Sec. 103. Whenever any office or position not specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 is appropriated for herein 46 Stat. 32. or whenever the rate of compensation or designation of any position 2 USC 60a note. appropriated for herein is different from that specifically established for such position by such Act, the rate of compensation and the designation of the position, or either, appropriated for or provided herein, shall be the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided, That the provisions herein for the various items of official expenses of Members, officers, and committees of the Senate and House, and clerk hire for Senators and Members shall be the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided further, That the provisions relating to positions and salaries thereof carried in House Resolutions 685 and 904 of the Eighty-eighth Congress and the provisions of House Resolution 831 of said Congress shall be the permanent law with respect thereto: Provided further, That the provisions relating to positions and salaries thereof carried in House Resolutions 127, 248, 258, 312

and 313 of the Eighty-ninth Congress and the provisions of House Resolution 7 of said Congress shall be the permanent law with respect thereto.

This Act may be cited as the “Legislative Branch Appropriation Short title. Act, 1966".

Approved July 27, 1965.


HOUSE REPORTS: No. 442 (Comm. on Appropriations) and No. 630 (Comm.

of Conference).
SENATE REPORT No. 424 (Comm. on Appropriations).

June 8: Considered and passed House.
July 12: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
July 21: House and Senate agreed to conference report.

[blocks in formation]

(The above-referred to documents were marked "Langston Exhibit 3-A, B, and C," and were received in evidence.)

Mr. TAYLER. I would offer those at this time, into the record.

Mr. Hays. Without objection, they will be placed in the record at the proper point.

By Mr. TAYLER: Q. Mr. Langston, following the House Clerk's reply to Mr. Burleson by letter dated June 9, 1965, which is now "Langston Exhibit No. 2," did the chairman, Mr. Burleson, have any further correspondence on this subject?

A. With the Clerk of the House?
Q. No; with anyone.

A. Yes, sir. On June 11, 1965, the chairman addressed a letter to Hon. Joseph Campbell, Comptroller General of the United States, in which he mentioned the same problem that was mentioned to the clerk and asked the Comptroller General for his recommendations as to how the matter might be cured.

Q. The matter we are referring to is whether or not the clerk had any authority to stop paying Y. Marjorie Flores on Representative Powell's staff, is it not?

A. That is a portion of the problem. The other problem was what to do to make the provisions of House Resolution 294 as brought forward more en forcible.

Q. Going back for a moment, House Resolution 294 and the statute which subsequently enacted it into law contained no enforcement provisions.

A. No penalty and no enforcement provision.

Q. And there is no requirement in the statute that the member certify that the clerk-hire employee on the payroll has in fact performed any services, or that the services have been performed in the location specified in the statute, is there?

A. That is correct. There is no provision made for certification. There is no certification.

Q. The letter that you just referred to from Chairman Burleson to GAO is dated June 11, 1965.

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. May that be marked "Langston Exhibit No. 4"?

JUNE 11, 1965.
Comptroller General of the United States,
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 20548

DEAR MR. CAMPBELL: Section 2 of H. Res. 294, 88th Congress, which passed the House of Representatives on August 14, 1964, contained language designed to prevent the employment of clerks to Members of the House who did not perform the services for which they were paid in the Member's district, in the Member's state, or in the District of Columbia. H. Res. 7, which passed the House January 4, 1965, continued in the 89th Congress the provisions of H. Res. 294, 88th Congress.

The Committee takes cognizance of possible violations relating to a specific case, such as indicated in the attached magazine articles. This Committee has not attempted to determine the correctness of these statements since the responsibility for payment of salaries to employees of Members rests with the Disbursing Officer of the House, who is also the Clerk of the House.

The Committee has directed me to advise with you as to how we may determine the true situation. If it develops violations have occurred, what would be the proper course to correct such violations?

I might add that we have requested the Clerk of the House to look into possible violations of the provisions of H. Res. 7, but no advice has been forthcoming. Thus the Committee turns to you for assistance. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours,

OMAR BURLESON, Chairman. (The document referred to above was marked "Langston Exhibit 4" and received in evidence.)

Mr. TAYLER. I would offer that into the record at the appropriate place, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hays. Without objection, it is so ordered.

By Mr. TAYLER: Subsequent to the letter that has just been admitted, were there discussions between you, as chief clerk of the House Committee on Administration and GAO officials regarding the enforcement of the statute we have been talking about?

A. There were several discussions between myself and the legislative liaison officer from General Accounting Office.

Q. Did you discuss this matter with Chairman Burleson?
A. Yes, sir; I did in great detail and great length.

Q. As a result of those discussions, did there come a time when Chairman Burleson introduced a bill in the House?

A. Yes, sir. As a direct result of these discussions, H.R. 11114 was introduced on September 16, 1965, by Chairman Burleson.

Q. Would you briefly summarize the provisions of that bill?

A. The bill had two features to it with respect to the clerk-hire of members: One, that existing personnel on the clerk-hire on a member's role be certified to as complying with the provisions of House Resolution 294 and House Resolution 7 which was subsequently enacted into law by Public Law 89–90. The other feature was that the future employees of a member be certified to as complying with these requirements at the time he was placed on the payroll. A penalty was provided—a criminal penalty was provided.

Q. When you mentioned certifications, you are talking about a certification that the member would make vouching for the fact that the employment of the clerk was not in violation of Public Law 89–90; is that right?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. In other words, the employment of the clerk was either in the District of Columbia or in the State or the district which the member represented ?

A. Yes; he is making an absolute certification to that fact, and there is a penalty if it is not that way.

Q. Was that bill passed?
A. No, sir; it was not passed during the 89th Congress.
Mr. TÁYLER. Could that be marked "Langston Exhibit No.5”!

[H.R. 11114, 89th Cong., 1st sess.) A BILL To amend the joint resolution of January 25, 1923, to require Members of the

House of Representatives to make certain certifications with respect to persons paid from their clerk hire

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the joint resolution entitled “Joint resolution providing for pay to clerks to Members of Congress and delegates”, approved January 25, 1923, as amended (2 U.S.C. 92), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section :

"SEC. 2. (a) No appropriation for clerk hire shall be paid to any person designated to be placed upon the roll of employees of the House of Representatives by a Member of the House of Representatives unless such Member has on file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives a certificate, under oath, that every person so designated by such Member will receive compensation from such clerk hire only for services performed in the offices of such Member in the District of Columbia, or in the State or the district which such Member represents.

“(b) Any Member of the House of Representatives who knowingly pays or causes to be paid from his clerk hire compensation for services performed other than in the offices of such Member in the District of Columbia, or in the State or the district which such Member represents, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

"(c) As used in this section the term ‘Member of the House of Representatives' includes the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the term 'State in the case of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."

SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall take effect on the first day of the first month which begins after the date of enactment of this Act.

(The above-referred to document was marked "Langston Exhibit No. 5” and received in evidence.)

Mr. TAYLER. I offer that into the record at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYS. Without objection, it will be entered into the record at the appropriate place. Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my examination.

By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. I have a question, Mr. Langston. When a voucher for payment of air travel is received by the committee and attached to it are the stubs showing travel by a particular member of the committee, such as Smith or Jones or McCoy, that is a representation to your committee that that particular employee did in fact perform that travel?

A. Yes, sir; that and the fact that the chairman of the full committee had certified to it.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I have no further questions.
Mr. Hays. Are there any other questions?

Mr. DICKINSON. Yes, I will get to my other question. What does the certification mean and what is the significance whether or not a per diem charge is made?

The WITNESS. The best answer I can give you, Mr. Dickinson, is that when a person travels on business of the House of Representatives, he is expected to be paid for it. He is not expected to pay for it out of his own pocket. He is entitled to reimbursement. We have a provision in our regulations whereby he can request reimbursement through regulations which are available to each committee. The detail is that he shows the number of days he may be paid at a standard rate of $16 per day for subsistence. In addition to that, he can be paid the cost of transportation. He certifies to the correctness of his request for reimbursement, and that is further certified to by the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. DICKINSON. Is it customary or very unusual for someone to travel or an employee to travel on Government business and not ask for per diem?

The Witness. It is very unusual, almost unthinkable.

« PreviousContinue »