[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 11. Subject Matter: Agriculture]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5433-5449]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 11. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Language of Permanence in Prior Appropriation Act

Consumption of Domestic Farm Commodities

Sec. 11.1 An appropriation of $25 million to be used to increase 
    domestic consumption of farm commodities was held authorized by 
    permanent legislation contained in a prior appropriation law 
    providing that ``hereafter such sums shall be available as approved 
    by Congress.''

    On May 20, 1964,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Removal of Surplus Agricultural Commodities (Section 32)

        No funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
    1935 (7 U.S.C. 612C) shall be used for any purpose other than 
    commodity program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
    operating expenses, except for . . . (5) not in excess of 
    $25,000,000 to be used to increase domestic consumption of farm 
    commodities pursuant to authority contained in Public Law 88-250, 
    the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriation 
    Act, 1964, of which amount $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
    expended for construction, alteration and modification of research 
    facilities.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language in this section headed ``Removal of 
    Surplus Agricultural Commodities (sec. 32).''. . .
        My point of order is that the proposition is not in compliance 
    with clause

[[Page 5434]]

    2 rule XXI of the House of Representatives. Clause 2 reads:

             No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        any expenditures not previously authorized by law, unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress.

        The Chairman: (20) May the Chair inquire of the 
    gentleman from Illinois as to whether his point of order is to the 
    entire section or the entire paragraph or that portion which he 
    indicated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the 
    portion of the section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. 
    I will read it. It reads as follows:

            (5) not in excess of $25,000,000 to be used to increase 
        domestic consumption of farm commodities pursuant to authority 
        contained in Public Law 88-250, the Department of Agriculture 
        and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1964, of which amount 
        $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
        construction, alteration and modification of research 
        facilities.

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will include the word ``and'' on 
    line 2, I assume.
        Mr. Findley: Yes.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I call 
    attention to the section in the bill, last year where Congress 
    passed permanent legislation authorizing this in the appropriation 
    act in which we said hereafter this could be done. It is in last 
    year's appropriation act which was written for this specific 
    purpose and provides hereafter not to exceed $25 million may be 
    appropriated for these purposes. We cite chapter and verse there, 
    so to speak, and it is quite clear. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Findley] makes a point of order addressed to the 
    language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning with ``and'' and 
    continuing through and including line 9, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Centennial of Agriculture Department

Sec. 11.2 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    a celebration of the

[[Page 5435]]

    centennial of the establishment of the Department of Agriculture 
    was held to be not specifically authorized by law and not 
    authorized by the organic act creating the department and 
    permitting dissemination of information.

    On June 6, 1961,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7444), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 9625, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Centennial Observance of Agriculture

                             Salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for planning, promoting, 
        coordinating, and assisting participation by industry, trade 
        associations, commodity groups, and similar interests in the 
        celebration of the centennial of the establishment of the 
        Department of Agriculture; expenses of an honorary committee 
        established in connection with such celebration; and employment 
        pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (5 U.S.C. 
        574), as amended by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 
        U.S.C. 55a); $100,000, to remain available until December 31, 
        1962.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 28, line 14, 
    and continuing down to and including line 2 on page 29, that it is 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. May 
    I say we have checked this matter and under the organic act of 1862 
    creating the Department of Agriculture, authority is granted to 
    disseminate information. It is our argument and our insistence that 
    the language which the gentleman would strike under which a 
    centennial observance of the creation of the Department of 
    Agriculture is to be held here in Washington where visitors from 
    all over the United States may come to see the exhibits and 
    demonstrations and reports and various other things that the 
    Department has brought together over the years is clearly 
    disseminating information, and is within the organic act which 
    created the Department of Agriculture, which act was passed in 
    1862.
        The Chairman: The Chair asks the gentleman from Mississippi if 
    he can refer the Chair to any special or specific legislation 
    authorizing the celebration of the centennial of the establishment 
    of the Department of Agriculture or does the gentleman rely on the 
    general organic act?
        Mr. Whitten: I rely upon the general organic act, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard further on the point of order?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I did not find anything in that act 
    which said

[[Page 5436]]

    anything about any honorary committee--they never even dreamed of 
    that at that time.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. Whitten: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoffman) makes a point of 
    order against that portion of the bill appearing in line 14 on page 
    28 through and including line 2 on page 29. The Chair is 
    constrained to hold that the language does constitute legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Cooperative Range Improvements

Sec. 11.3 Appropriations for cooperative range improvements (including 
    construction, maintenance of improvements, control of rodents, and 
    eradication of noxious plants in national forests) were authorized 
    by law.

    On May 10, 1951,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3973, a Department of Agriculture appropriation. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 5224, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. H. Carl Andersen (of Minnesota): Page 
    26, line 12, insert:

            ``For artificial revegetation, construction, and 
        maintenance of range improvements, control of rodents, and 
        eradication of poisonous and noxious plants on national 
        forests, as authorized by section 12 of the act of April 24, 
        1950 (Public Law 478), $700,000, to remain available until 
        expended.''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I make [a] point of 
    order.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point 
    of order?
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: I call the Chair's attention to the 
    remarks made by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D'Ewart] on 
    yesterday, which appear in yesterday's Record which shows that this 
    particular item I am attempting to reinsert is authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I refer to section 12 of Public Law 478, Eighty-
    first Congress, which reads as follows:

            Of the moneys received from grazing fees by the Treasury 
        from each national forest during each fiscal year there shall 
        be available at the end thereof when appropriated by Congress 
        an amount equivalent to 2 cents per animal-month for sheep and 
        goats and 10 cents per animal-month for other kinds of 
        livestock under permit on such national forest during the 
        calendar year in which the fiscal year begins, which 
        appropriated amount shall be available until expended on such 
        national forests, under such regulations as the Secretary of 
        Agriculture may prescribe, for (1) artificial revegetation, 
        including the collection or purchase of necessary seed; (2) 
        construction and maintenance of drift or division

[[Page 5437]]

        fences and stockwatering places, bridges, corrals, driveways, 
        or other necessary range improvements; (3) control of range-
        destroying rodents; or (4) eradication of poisonous plants and 
        noxious weeds, in order to protect or improve the future 
        productivity of the range.

        Mr. Chairman, I maintain and respectfully call your attention 
    to the fact that this distinctly authorizes the section of this 
    particular paragraph which I seek by my amendment to have 
    reinserted. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    in order, and therefore overrules the point of order.

Conservation

Sec. 11.4 An amendment proposing an increase of appropriations 
    contained in the bill for the year 1951 for conservation and use of 
    agricultural land resources under the act of Feb. 29, 1936, was 
    held authorized by law inasmuch as the law itself did not provide a 
    limit on the appropriations.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter in the 
general appropriation bill of 1951. The bill stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 5949, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of 
    sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act, approved February 29, 1936, as amended . . . 
    $282,500,000, to remain available until December 31 of the next 
    succeeding fiscal year for compliance with the program of soil-
    building practices and soil- and water-conserving practices 
    authorized under this head in the Department of Agriculture 
    Appropriation Act, 1950, carried out during the period July 1, 
    1949, to December 31, 1950, inclusive: Provided, That not to exceed 
    $25,500,000 of the total sum provided under this head shall be 
    available during the current fiscal year for salaries and other 
    administrative expenses for carrying out such program . . . but not 
    more than $5,000,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
    account, ``Administrative expenses, section 392, Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938'' . . . Provided further, That none of the 
    funds herein appropriated or made available for the functions 
    assigned to the Agricultural Adjustment Agency pursuant to the 
    Executive Order Numbered 9069, of February 23, 1942, shall be used 
    to pay the salaries or expenses of any regional information 
    employees or any State information employees, but this shall not 
    preclude the answering of inquiries or supplying of information at 
    the county level to individual farmers: Provided further, That such 
    amount shall be available for salaries and other administrative 
    expenses in connection with the formulation and administration of 
    the 1951 program of soil-building practices and soil- and water-
    conserving practices, under the Act of February 29, 1936, as 
    amended (amounting to $285,000,000, including administration. . . 
    .)

    An amendment was offered:

[[Page 5438]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George H.] Christopher [of Missouri]: 
    On page 190, line 24, strike out ``$285,000,000'' and insert 
    ``$400,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that this is language that is not 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Christopher: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by rather reliable 
    sources that the authorization is for a $500,000,000 program.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair would invite attention to the fact that this is for the 
    future. Unless there is some limitation of law to which the 
    attention of the Chair has not been called, this amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The burden of proof should have been on the 
proponent of the amendment to show the total amount authorized or the 
absence of any limit.

School Lunch Program

Sec. 11.5 An appropriation to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    carry out the provisions of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 
    was authorized by law; charges that disbursement of funds did not 
    follow requirements of that law did not detract from authorization.

    On Apr. 1, 1947,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2849, a deficiency appropriation bill. A point of 
order against the following amendment was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 2978, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: On 
    page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
        ``For an additional amount, fiscal year 1947, to enable the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the 
    National School Lunch Act of 1946, $6,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not authorized by law.
        The statute which purports to authorize it provides as follows:

            Such payments to any State in any fiscal year during the 
        period 1947 to 1950, inclusive, shall be made upon condition 
        that each dollar thereof will be matched during such year by $1 
        from sources within the State determined by the Secretary to 
        have been expended in connection with the school-lunch program 
        under this act. . . .
            For the purpose of determining whether the matching 
        requirements of this section and section 10, respectively, have 
        been met, the reasonable value of donated services, supplies, 
        facilities, and equipment as certified, respectively, by the 
        State edu

[[Page 5439]]

        cational agency and in case of schools receiving funds pursuant 
        to section 10, by such schools.

        The total appropriation distributed amounts to $72,975,000; the 
    total [amount matched is] $11,470,000.
        There has been complete failure of matching by local 
    authorities within the provisions of the statute. Under the 
    circumstances they have not complied with the law and there is no 
    opportunity for a deficiency here. . . .
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, as the amendment indicates, the 
    appropriation proposed here is to enable the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the National School 
    Lunch Act of 1946. The act speaks for itself. Under the law the 
    question of matching is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture. It is not a matter to be determined by this body. That 
    is a function specifically delegated by the act to the executive in 
    charge of the program--the Secretary of Agriculture. There is no 
    question about the amendment being in order. The sole proposition 
    involved is to carry out the provisions of the act. I submit that 
    the point of order is not well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri is germane to the bill and 
    the appropriation authorized by law; therefore overrules the point 
    of order presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].

Penalty Refunds

Sec. 11.6 A provision for the refund of certain penalties to the wheat 
    producers from whom the penalties were collected was held 
    unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 24, 1945,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2689, an Agriculture Department appropriation. When an 
amendment was offered to a paragraph containing an appropriation for 
programs under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 2713, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William] Lemke [of North Dakota]: 
    Page 49, line 2, after the words ``as amended'' and comma, insert 
    ``$16,000,000 to be made available and earmarked for the refund of 
    the wheat-marketing-quota penalities to the producers, their heirs 
    or assigns, from whom the penalties were collected.''
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order against this amendment. The fact that it is 
    offered in a different place in the bill makes no difference. It is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is out of order.
        Mr. Lemke: Mr. Chairman, on that I wish to be heard briefly.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lemke: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that this is a 
    limitation on the $300,000,000 appropriated and earmarked for the 
    purpose for which it should be used. In the second place,

[[Page 5440]]

    this tax was collected illegally and unconstitutionally from the 
    producers of wheat, and the Department of Agriculture has that 
    money. I feel that the farmers who paid it are entitled to have it 
    returned.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . Under the 
    authorization the $300,000,000 contained in the bill is for 
    compliance with . . . the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment 
    Act, and under the terms of that act no provisions were made for 
    the refunds embraced in the amendment. Therefore the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Compilation of Consumer Statistics

Sec. 11.7 A section of an appropriation bill providing funds to 
    collect, compile, and analyze data relating to consumer 
    expenditures and savings, and to compile statistics collected by 
    the Department of Agriculture, was conceded not to be authorized by 
    law.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
5587), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 9073, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 90 Cong. Rec. 
        8940, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 6, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Consumer expenditures and savings study: For all expenses 
        of the Department of Labor necessary to collect, compile, and 
        analyze statistics with respect to the consumer expenditures 
        and savings in predominantly nonrural areas, to publish the 
        results thereof, and to compile statistics collected by the 
        Department of Agriculture in other areas, such expenses to 
        include personal services in the District of Columbia and other 
        items properly chargeable to the appropriations for the 
        Department of Labor for contingent expenses, travel, and 
        printing and binding, fiscal year 1945, $1,532,000, to remain 
        available until June 30, 1946.

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on line 8 and ending 
    in line 18, page 31, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, not authorized by law.
        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equipment Expenses, Soil Conservation Service

Sec. 11.8 A proviso in the agriculture appropriation bill making 
    certain appropriations in the bill, allocated for work of the Soil 
    Conservation Service, available in part for procurement of 
    equipment for distribution to projects under the super

[[Page 5441]]

    vision of such Service and for sale to other governmental 
    activities, was held to be legislation and to be unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(13) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3580, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Soil Conservation Service

            To carry out the provisions of an act entitled ``An act to 
        provide for the protection of land resources against soil 
        erosion, and for other purposes.'' . . . Provided further, That 
        during the fiscal year for which appropriations are herein made 
        the appropriations for the work of the Soil Conservation 
        Service shall be available for meeting the expenses of 
        warehouse maintenance and the procurement, care, and handling 
        of supplies, materials, and equipment stored therein for 
        distribution to projects under the supervision of the Soil 
        Conservation Service and for sale and distribution to other 
        Government activities, the cost of such supplies and materials 
        or the value of such equipment (including the cost of 
        transportation and handling) to be reimbursed to appropriations 
        current at the time additional supplies, materials, or 
        equipment are procured from the appropriations chargeable with 
        the cost or value of such supplies, materials, or equipment: 
        Provided further, That reproductions of such aerial or other 
        photographs, mosaics, and maps as shall be required in 
        connection with the authorized work of the Soil Conservation 
        Service may be furnished at the cost of reproduction to 
        Federal, State, county, or municipal agencies requesting such 
        reproductions, the money received from such sales to be 
        deposited in the Treasury to the credit of this appropriation, 
        as follows:

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language in the paragraph beginning 
    ``Provided further,'' line 12, page 71, and continuing to the end 
    of the paragraph, on the ground that the same is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language referred to is unquestionably out of order and for that 
    reason the point of order undoubtedly will lie, and be sustained. 
    We desire to offer an amendment which will include language that is 
    not out of order to replace the language stricken out by the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Kansas makes 
    the point of order that the language indicated by him beginning on 
    page 71, line 12, and concluding with the words ``as follows'', 
    page 72, line 8, is legislation. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research on Use of Potatoes

Sec. 11.9 An appropriation to permit the Department of Agriculture to 
    investigate and develop methods for the manufacture and utilization 
    of

[[Page 5442]]

    starches from cull potatoes and surplus crops was conceded to be 
    unauthorized and was ruled out.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and an amendment was offered as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 947, 948, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Total, salaries and expenses, Bureau of Agriculture Chemistry 
    and Engineering, $868,775, of which amount not to exceed $457,602 
    may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia, 
    and not to exceed $3,725 shall be available for the purchase of 
    motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles 
    necessary in the conduct of field work outside the District of 
    Columbia.
        Mr. [John G.] Alexander [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: On page 50, line 1, 
        after ``Columbia'', insert ``of which amount not less than 
        $25,000 nor more than $50,000 shall be used for the 
        investigation and development of methods for the manufacturing 
        and utilization of starches from cull potatoes and surplus 
        crops.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    is, of course, subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Missouri makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota, the amendment providing for the investigation and 
    development of methods for the manufacture and utilization of 
    starches. Unless the gentleman from Minnesota can present some 
    authority in law for the appropriation, which has not been called 
    to the attention of the Chair, the Chair is prepared to rule. Does 
    the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authorization in Organic Law

Sec. 11.10 An appropriation for collecting and disseminating 
    information and data with respect to potato production was held 
    authorized by the organic act creating the Department of 
    Agriculture which provided for acquisition and diffusion of 
    information on agriculture.

    On Jan. 23, 1936,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 964, 965, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, which I send to the desk.

[[Page 5443]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Warren: On page 16, after line 5, 
        insert as a new paragraph the following:
            ``For the purpose of collecting and disseminating useful 
        information and data with respect to potato production and 
        marketing within the United States to be available to the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, the sum of $1,000,000 for the fiscal 
        year 1936: Provided, That no part of such fund will be used for 
        the enforcement of the Potato Act of 1935.''

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    make a point of order on the amendment just offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: The amendment just offered is not germane. The bill 
    under consideration is an appropriation bill which appropriates 
    money to carry out legislation that has already been enacted and 
    which is now in force and effect. This is a distinct effort toward 
    new legislation. It calls for an investigation, based upon no law 
    that is now in existence and is not part and parcel of an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina is not germane to this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule unless the 
    gentleman from Virginia desires to be heard.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: No; Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Warren] is to that part of the bill making 
    appropriations for the Department of Agriculture. This would 
    necessarily relate to the organic law creating the Department of 
    Agriculture. The Chair has examined, in the brief time permitted 
    him, the law establishing the Department of Agriculture. The 
    organic act creating the Department may be found in title V, 
    section 511, United States Code, and contains this provision.

            Establishing of departments. There shall be at the seat of 
        Government a Department of Agriculture, the general design and 
        duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the 
        people of the United States useful information on subjects 
        connected with agriculture, in the most general and 
        comprehensive sense of that word--

        And so forth.
        It occurs to the Chair that the specific language contained in 
    the organic act creating the Department of Agriculture would 
    clearly authorize an appropriation for the purpose sought to be 
    accomplished by the amendment here offered. The pending bill is an 
    appropriation bill, and the part of the bill now under 
    consideration relates to appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture. The Chair therefore feels that the amendment is 
    germane and that the appropriation is authorized by existing law. 
    The Chair overrules the point of order.

Organic Act as Authority for Research and Demonstration Projects

Sec. 11.11 Appropriations for agricultural engineering research, and 
    demonstration and application of methods

[[Page 5444]]

    for prevention and control of dust explosions and fires during the 
    harvesting and storing of agricultural products were held to be 
    authorized by the organic act creating the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 935, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Agricultural engineering investigations: For investigations, 
    experiments, and demonstrations involving the application of 
    engineering principles to agriculture for the investigation, 
    development, experimental demonstration, for investigating and 
    reporting upon the different kinds of farm power and appliances; 
    upon farm domestic water supply and sewage disposal, upon the 
    design and construction of farm buildings and their appurtenances 
    and of buildings for processing and storing farm products; upon 
    farm power and mechanical farm equipment and rural electrification; 
    upon the engineering problems relating to the processing, 
    transportation, and storage of perishable and other agricultural 
    products; and upon the engineering problems involved in adapting 
    physical characteristics of farm land to the use of modern farm 
    machinery; for investigations of cotton ginning under the act 
    approved April 19, 1930 (7 U.S.C., 424, 425); for giving expert 
    advice and assistance in agricultural and chemical engineering; for 
    collating, reporting, and illustrating the results of 
    investigations and preparing, publishing and distributing 
    bulletins, plans, and reports, $294,469.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bulwinkle: On page 48, after line 
        22, after the word ``demonstration'', in line 21, insert ``and 
        application of methods for the prevention and control of dust 
        explosions and fires during the harvesting, handling, milling, 
        processing, fumigating, and storing of agricultural products, 
        and of other dust explosions and resulting fires not otherwise 
        provided for, including fires in grain mills and elevators, 
        cotton gins, cotton-oil mills, and other structures; the 
        heating, charring, and ignition of agricultural products; fires 
        on farms and in rural communities and other explosions and 
        fires in connection with farm and agricultural operations.''

        On page 49, line 13, strike out ``294,469'' and insert 
    $324,469.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina offers an amendment which has 
    been read, and against this amendment the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber] makes the point of order that it is not authorized by 
    law. Title V of the or

[[Page 5445]]

    ganic law establishes the Department of Agriculture, and in section 
    511 is found this language:

            There shall be at the seat of Government a Department of 
        Agriculture the general design and purpose of which shall be to 
        acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States 
        useful information on subjects connected with agriculture.

        Without further reading of the organic law to which the Chair 
    has referred, the Chair is of opinion that the amendment is clearly 
    within the scope of the law.
        The point of order is overruled.

Dutch Elm Disease

Sec. 11.12 An appropriation for control of Dutch elm disease and 
    bestowing certain new discretionary authority on the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to require matching state or local funds was conceded 
    not to be authorized by law and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point, a point of order was raised against a paragraph in the bill and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 3292, 3293, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dutch elm disease eradication: For determining and applying 
    methods of eradication, control, and prevention of spread of the 
    disease of elm trees known as ``Dutch elm disease,'' $100,000: 
    Provided, That, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
    no expenditures from this appropriation shall be made for these 
    purposes until a sum or sums at least equal to such expenditures 
    shall have been appropriated, subscribed, or contributed by State, 
    county, or local authorities, or by individuals, or organizations 
    concerned: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
    shall be used to pay the cost or value of trees or other property 
    injured or destroyed.
        Mr. [Malcom C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order as to the 
    language on pages 56 and 57 of the bill relating to the 
    appropriation for Dutch elm disease eradication on the ground it is 

    not authorized by existing legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: I concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Moth Control

Sec. 11.13 An appropriation for gypsy and brown-tail moth control was 
    ruled out as not authorized by law.

[[Page 5446]]

    On Mar. 25, 1939,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 3292, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Gypsy and brown-tail moth control: For control and prevention 
    of spread of the gypsy and brown-tail moths, $250,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against lines 
    5, 6, and 7, on page 56, having to do with gypsy and brown-tail 
    moth control on the ground that there is no legislation authorizing 
    this appropriation. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Purchase of Vehicles

Sec. 11.14 Language limiting the amount of an appropriation in an 
    Agriculture Department appropriation bill which could be used for 
    necessary vehicles was held authorized by law.

    On Apr. 19, 1938,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10238, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
During consideration of the bill, a point of order against the 
following language was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. !5541-43, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide that the United States shall aid the States in the 
    construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes''. . 
    .$63,000,000, to be immediately available and to remain available 
    until expended . . . Provided further, That not to exceed $45,000 
    of the funds provided for carrying out the provisions of the 
    Federal Highway Act of November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 21, 23), shall 
    be available for the purchase of motor-propelled passenger-carrying 
    vehicles necessary for carrying out the provisions of said act . . 
    . at a cost . . . not to exceed $1,200. . . .
        Mr. [Wilburn] Cartwright [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23, page 70, 
    starting with the words ``Provided further'', and ending on line 7, 
    page 71, with the sign and figures ``$1,200'', that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William L. Nelson (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since last Thursday, when the Chair passed upon a somewhat 
    similar proposition, an opportunity has been afforded to look more 
    fully into the precedents governing such cases. The

[[Page 5447]]

    Chair has examined the precedents which may be found in Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 7, sections 1127, 1193, 1197, 1235, and 1245. 
    The Chair finds that those decisions uniformly hold that an 
    appropriation for the hire or purchase of automobiles is in order 
    on a general appropriation bill. In this connection the Chair 
    desires to call attention to the fact that on February 8, 1929, a 
    point of order was raised against the provision in the naval 
    appropriation bill appropriating money for the hire of automobiles. 
    In overruling the point of order the Chairman, Mr. Luce, of 
    Massachusetts, stated:

            The Chair is of opinion that by an attempt to put into the 
        law minute provision for all possible manner of expenditure the 
        size of the statute books would be largely increased, and that 
        by reason of the impossibility of foresight in matter of detail 
        more harm than good would result. It has been the uniform 
        ruling of preceding Chairmen, so far as the Chair can 
        ascertain, that these minor and incidental objects of 
        expenditures are natural to the conduct of the business 
        establishment concerned.

        The Chair also desires to call attention to the fact that on 
    April 23, 1937, Mr. Taber, of New York, made a point of order 
    against an identical provision in the agriculture appropriation 
    bill authorizing the expenditure of not to exceed $45,000 for the 
    purchase of automobiles by the Bureau of Public Roads and contended 
    that there was no authorization of law for the purchase of 
    automobiles by that Bureau.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri and Mr. Umstead argued that the 
    provision was purely a limitation on an appropriation and that, 
    without it, the Bureau would have authority to spend the entire 
    appropriation for automobiles if they so desired.
        The Chairman, Mr. Hancock of North Carolina, in overruling the 
    point of order stated:

            The Chair overrules the point of order on the ground that 
        the proviso constitutes a limitation, without which the 
        Secretary could spend any amount within the total of the 
        appropriation for this purpose.

        The Chair, in view of the precedents just cited, thinks that 
    the proviso to which the point of order has been directed is in 
    order and overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.

Shelter-belt Trees to Prevent Erosion

Sec. 11.15 An appropriation ``for completing shelter-belt investigation 
    and for the free distribution of shelter-belt trees to farmers'' 
    was held to be authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1936,(7) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 80 Cong. Rec. 2895, 2896, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Forest influences: For investigations at forest experiment 
    stations and elsewhere for determining the possibility of 
    increasing the absorption of rainfall

[[Page 5448]]

    by the soil, and for devising means to be employed in the 
    preservation of soil, the prevention or control of destructive 
    erosion, and the conservation of rainfall on forest or range lands, 
    $99,152. . . .
        Mr. [Phil] Ferguson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Ferguson: Page 48, line 3, after 
        ``$99,15'', strike out the period, insert a comma, and add the 
        following: ``and in addition thereto, $180,000 for completing 
        shelter-belt investigation and for the free distribution of 
        shelter-belt trees to farmers.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation calling for 
    an appropriation not authorized by law. There is no authority in 
    anything I have ever seen to provide for free distribution of trees 
    or for a shelter belt. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Congress in the last session passed an act--Public, No. 
    46--to provide for the protection of land resources against soil 
    erosion, and for other purposes. This act provides that--

            It is hereby recognized that the wastage of soil and 
        moisture resources on farm, grazing, and forest lands of the 
        Nation, resulting from soil erosion, is a menace to the 
        national welfare and that it is hereby declared to be the 
        policy of Congress to provide permanently for the control and 
        prevention of soil erosion and thereby to preserve natural 
        resources, control floods, prevent impairment of reservoirs, 
        and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors, protect 
        public health, public lands, and relieve unemployment, and the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, from now on, shall coordinate and 
        direct all activities with relation to soil erosion, and in 
        order to effectuate this policy is hereby authorized, from time 
        to time--
            (1) To conduct surveys, investigations, and research 
        relating to the character of soil erosion and the preventive 
        measures needed, to publish the results of any such surveys, 
        investigations, or research, to disseminate information 
        concerning such methods, and to conduct demonstrational 
        projects in areas subject to erosion by wind or water.
            (2) To carry out preventive measures, including, but not 
        limited to, engineering operations, methods 
        of cultivation, the growing of vegetation, and changes in use 
        of lands. . . .

        The Chair is of the opinion that this proposed appropriation is 
    authorized by the provision of law just quoted, and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Weather Bureau Buildings; Equipment and Repair

Sec. 11.16 An appropriation for the purchase and installation of 
    instruments, and the construction or repair of buildings of the 
    Weather Bureau was held to be authorized by law.

    On Feb. 26, 1936,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5449]]

ering H.R. 11418, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 2884, 2885, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General weather service and research: For necessary expenses 
    incident to collecting and disseminating meteorological, 
    climatological, and marine information, and for investigations in 
    meteorology, climatology, seismology, evaporation, and aerology in 
    the District of Columbia and elsewhere . . . $2,228,655. . . .
        Mr. [J. Mark] Wilcox [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wilcox: Page 21, between lines 20 
        and 21, add a new paragraph to read as follows:
            ``In addition to all other sums herein appropriated for 
        that purpose, there is hereby appropriated the sum of $25,000 
        for the purchase and installation of instruments, the 
        construction, extension, and repair of buildings, and payment 
        of wages, salaries, and other expenses incident to the 
        accumulation of information and the issuance of warnings 
        concerning storms and hurricanes originating in the South 
        Atlantic and Caribbean areas.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    statute (U.S.C., title 15, sec. 313) provides, among other things, 
    the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Chief of the Weather Bureau, under the direction of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture, shall have charge of the forecasting 
        of the weather . . . the distribution of meteorological 
        information in the interest of agriculture and commerce, the 
        taking of such meteorological observations as may be necessary 
        to establish and record the climatic condition of the United 
        States or as are essential to the proper execution of the 
        foregoing duties . . . and for such purposes to . . . establish 
        meteorological offices and stations.

        The Chair is of opinion that the amendment does not constitute 
    legislation on an appropriation bill but is an appropriation 
    authorized by the provisions of the statute the Chair has quoted.
        The point of order is overruled.