[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 35. Change in Source of Appropriated Funds or in Methods of Financing]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5820-5834]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 35. Change in Source of Appropriated Funds or in Methods of 
    Financing

Change in Source of Funds--Reclamation Fund/General Fund

Sec. 35.1 Where existing law authorizes appropriations out of a 
    reclamation fund for surveys, it has been held not in order to 
    appropriate money out of the general funds of the Treasury for such 
    surveys.

    On May 17, 1937,(14) H.R. 6958, the Department of the 
Interior appropriation for 1938, was being considered in the Committee 
of the Whole. At one point, the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4692, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grand Coulee Dam, Wash.: For continuation of construction of 
    Grand Cou

[[Page 5821]]

    lee Dam and appurtenant works, $13,000,000, together with the 
    unexpended balance of the appropriation for this dam contained in 
    the Interior Department Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1937: 
    Provided, That of this amount not to exceed $250,000 may be 
    expended for economic, industrial, and mineral surveys.
        Mr. (Francis D.) Culkin (of New York): Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order not against the first portion of the paragraph, but 
    to the proviso on the ground that that amount is not authorized by 
    law, and in corroboration of that fact I say to the Chair that 
    legislation passed this afternoon cannot possibly have become law 
    as yet.

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Nevada 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the act 
    authorizing the reclamation project provides for such surveys.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: That would not make any 
    difference here, as this would come directly out of the Treasury 
    and not out of the reclamation fund.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from Nevada cite the Chair to 
    any definite provision of law authorizing the appropriation of 
    money out of the general funds in the Treasury for the making of 
    economic or mineral surveys?
        Mr. Scrugham: The act authorizing the reclamation project, 
    United States Code, page 1862, paragraph 391, authorizes an 
    appropriation to be known as the reclamation fund to be used in 
    examination and survey for the construction and maintenance of 
    irrigation works for storage, diversion, and development of waters 
    and reclamation of semiarid lands in such States and Territories.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that apparently this appropriation does not come out of 
    the reclamation fund but out of the general fund of the Treasury. 
    Does the gentleman desire to make any further comments or cite any 
    further authority?
        Mr. Scrugham: Did the gentleman from New York make the point of 
    order only to the proviso?
        Mr. Culkin: That is all.
        Mr. Scrugham: I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order to the proviso appearing in line 9, page 82. Apparently this 
    is an appropriation of money out of the general funds in the 
    Treasury not authorized by existing law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order as to the proviso.

Sec. 35.2 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating funds 
    out of the general funds of the Treasury (and not out of a 
    reclamation fund) for general investigations of proposed federal 
    reclamation projects, was held to be unauthorized by law.

    On Mar. 2, 1938, (16) H.R. 9621, the Department of the 
Interior ap

[[Page 5822]]

propriation for 1939, was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 2710, 2711, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For general investigations, $200,000, to enable the Secretary 
    of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to carry on 
    engineering and economic investigations of proposed Federal 
    reclamation projects, surveys for reconstruction, rehabilitation, 
    or extension of existing projects and studies of water conservation 
    and development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to 
    be carried on by said Bureau either independently, or, if deemed 
    advisable by the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with 
    State agencies, and other Federal agencies, including the Corps of 
    Engineers, National Resources Committee, and the Federal Power 
    Commission;
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning on line 18, page 85, 
    ending with line 4, page 86, upon the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [James C.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    authorized in my opinion in the general terms of the Reclamation 
    Act. It has been in effect for many years.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, an appropriation in accordance with 
    the authorization under the Reclamation Act is provided on page 77, 
    line 8, down to and including line 3 on page 78. The appropriation 
    is $25,000. That is the authorized appropriation. I do not believe 
    there is any authority for this out of the general fund of the 
    Treasury.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair has examined sections 
    411 and 396, United States Code, title 43, and it seems to the 
    Chair that under the terms of these two sections which are rather 
    broad in their application, this appropriation may be authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Is not that limited to the reclamation fund?
        The Chairman: The Chair was looking particularly with reference 
    to that. The Chair will read the entire section 411:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct, 
        as provided in this chapter, irrigation works for the storage, 
        diversion, and development of waters, including artesian wells, 
        and to report to Congress at the beginning of each regular 
        session as to the results of such examinations and surveys, 
        giving estimates of cost of all contemplated works, and 
        quantity and location of the lands which can be irrigated 
        therefrom, and all facts relative to the practicability of each 
        irrigation project; also the cost of works in process of 
        construction as well as of those which have been completed.

        Mr. Taber: I call the attention of the Chair to the language:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the 
        provisions of this chapter--

        That is where the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    and the reclamation fund are defined. That would imply that it is 
    to be done under the provisions of the reclamation fund. It would 
    seem to me that that is the authority under which they operated in

[[Page 5823]]

    providing the appropriation that is to be found on page 77.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Nevada desire to comment 
    on this, or the gentleman from Oklahoma? On consideration it seems 
    to the Chair that this comes out of the general fund in the 
    Treasury and not the reclamation fund, and this is limited in the 
    way suggested by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Scrugham: Section 411 seems to cover the matter.
        The Chairman: If this were out of the reclamation fund, there 
    would be no question about it, but this appropriation is out of the 
    general fund in the Treasury. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order inasmuch as the 
    appropriation is made out of the general fund and not the 
    reclamation fund. The Chair sustains the point of order.

--General Fund; Timber Sale Receipts

Sec. 35.3 A provision in a general appropriation bill providing funds 
    for an agricultural project, for which funding had been authorized 
    from the receipts of timber sales and not from appropriated funds, 
    was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

     On May 26, 1969,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 11612), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 13754, 13755, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Cooperative State Research Service

                              payment and expenses

            For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
        grants for cooperative forestry and other research, for 
        facilities, and for other expenses, including $53,854,000 to 
        carry into effect the provisions of the Hatch Act, approved 
        March 2, 1887, as amended by the Act approved August 11, 1955 
        (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i), including administration by the United 
        States Department of Agriculture; $3,785,000 for grants for 
        cooperative forestry research under the Act approved October 
        10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-582a-7), [of which amount, the sum of 
        $201,642.80 shall be paid to those States for the benefit of 
        the counties from which timber receipts earned as a result of 
        agreements entered into under the authority of the Weeks Act 
        (16 U.S.C. 500) have been withheld;] $2,000,000 in addition to 
        funds otherwise available for contracts and grants for 
        scientific research under the Act of August 4, 1965 (7 U.S.C. 
        450i) of which $1,000,000 shall be for the special cotton 
        research program and $400,000 for soybean research; $1,000,000 
        for grants for facilities under the Act approved July 22, 1963 
        (7 U.S.C. 390-390k); $160,000 for penalty mail costs of 
        agricultural experiment stations under section 6 of the Hatch 
        Act of 1887, as amended; and $376,000 for necessary expenses of 
        the Cooperative State Research Service, including 
        administration of payments to State agricul

[[Page 5824]]

        tural experiment stations, funds for employment pursuant to the 
        second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
        U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 
        U.S.C. 3109; in all, $61,175,000.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language contained on page 6, lines 22, 
    23, 24, and 25, and on page 7, lines 1 and 2, through the word 
    ``withheld''.
        My point of order is predicated on four grounds.
        First, this is legislation in an appropriation bill. Under the 
    so-called Weeks Act, lands may be transferred by States to the 
    Federal Government under an agreement to pay 75 percent of the 
    funds for timber cut for school purposes and for roads, but under 
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such funds come within the purview of 
    moneys to be paid by the Federal Government to the States. The 
    Attorney General and other appropriate agencies have determined the 
    so-called Weeks Act falls within the purview of that act. 
    Therefore, in requiring funds to be paid under the Weeks Act in 
    contravention to the decision of the Attorney General that no such 
    funds should be paid, it changes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, it establishes an affirmative direction 
    to the Secretary of Agriculture or to one of his subordinates to 
    make a payment. It requires him to take a specific action. It says 
    the money shall be paid. Contrary to other provisions of this 
    appropriation bill, which say that funds shall be available for 
    certain purposes, this is a direction, a mandate, a requirement to 
    an executive officer to take certain steps.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation without authority 
    of law. If the Chair will note the citation for the funds, it is 
    given as 16 U.S.C. 582a-582a-7. Mr. Chairman, I have read those 
    sections very carefully, and I find no authority in those sections 
    for making this particular payment. I have the code before me. The 
    code is directed to a sustained yield forest management program. It 
    does not provide for any payments to be made under the so-called 
    Weeks Act.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, assuming that there is authority under 
    the Weeks Act, this language is not directed to authority under the 
    Weeks Act. Assuming whatever authority the Weeks Act provided for 
    payment of certain funds, that authority no longer exists when 
    appropriate agencies of the Federal Government take steps to 
    suspend payments that were authorized under that law, taking the 
    steps authorized under another act.
        For example, whatever authority the Weeks Act gave to make such 
    payments, that authority was suspended by the action taken under 
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizing the Attorney General to 
    suspend any payments to counties which did not require their 
    schools to desegregate in accordance with the law.
        For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) he gentleman from Illinois 
    reserves his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, our 
    committee realizes its limitations, but I think it

[[Page 5825]]

    well to point out in connection with the point of order that the 
    authority under which the committee has attempted to act is that 
    found in 582 of title 16, the language which is in line 22. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in view of the words ``shall be paid'' I would 
    have to agree that the section is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi concedes that the 
    language is subject to a point of order.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois insist upon his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). The language of the bill 
    beginning in line 23, page 6, to and through the word ``withheld'' 
    on line 2, page 7, constitutes a diversion of funds from authorized 
    appropriations for an unauthorized purpose; and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order against that language.

Borrowing Authority in Lieu of Appropriation

Sec. 35.4 A provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating a 
    specific sum of money and providing that such sum would be borrowed 
    from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and directing such 
    corporation to lend such amount notwithstanding the provisions of 
    law was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On Feb. 2, 1940,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8202, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 1033, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5, and 
    the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of the Rural 
    Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901-914), 
    $40,000,000, [which sum shall be borrowed from the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 
    3(a) of said act, and shall be considered as made available 
    thereunder; and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is hereby 
    authorized and directed to lend such sum in addition to the amounts 
    heretofore authorized under said section 3(a) and without regard to 
    the limitation in respect of time contained in section 3(e) of said 
    act.]
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning on page 84, line 7, with the 
    word ``which'', and ending with the word ``act,'' in line 15, that 
    it is legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Missouri 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Authorization and Appropriation in Lieu of Treasury Financing

Sec. 35.5 Where the authorizing legislation provided (1) that

[[Page 5826]]

    a program should be financed through sale of notes issued by the 
    Secretary of Commerce, and (2) further authorized the Secretary of 
    the Treasury to purchase such notes, using, as a public-debt 
    transaction, the proceeds from the sale of securities issued under 
    the Second Liberty Bond Act, a provision in an appropriation bill 
    providing a direct appropriation, in lieu of the treasury 
    financing, was held to be legislation amending existing law to 
    provide a direct authorization for that appropriation.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 19726, 19727, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Area Redevelopment Administration

                         Area redevelopment assistance

            For necessary expenses of the Area Redevelopment 
        Administration in carrying out the Area Redevelopment Act 
        (Public Law 87-27), $168,000,000, [of which not to exceed 
        $122,500,000 shall remain available until expended for loans 
        and participations as authorized by section 6 and public 
        facility loans as authorized by section 7 of such Act], not to 
        exceed $40,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
        public facility grants as authorized by section 8, not to 
        exceed $2,250,000 shall be available for technical assistance 
        as authorized by section 11, and not to exceed $3,250,000 shall 
        be available for necessary expenses, not otherwise provided 
        for, including rent in the District of Columbia and hire of 
        passenger motor vehicles, [and any funds heretofore borrowed 
        from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 9 of such Act 
        shall be repaid from this appropriation and such section 9 is 
        hereby amended to read as follows: ``There are hereby 
        authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of extending 
        financial assistance under sections 6 and 7 such amounts as may 
        be necessary to furnish financial assistance in the maximum 
        amounts authorized under such sections].''

        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the following language, on the ground it proposes 
    to change existing law and is legislation on an appropriation bill:
        Page 4, beginning with the figure ``$168,000,000'', line 19, 
    and running through line 22; and on page 5, beginning with ``and 
    any funds'', line 4, running through line 12, except the period. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: . . . But if the gentleman 
    feels that he cannot withdraw his point of order, I will join the 
    gentleman in his point of order and ask that the entire paragraph 
    be stricken.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Thomas] make

[[Page 5827]]

    a point of order against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: The entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Replacing Treasury Borrowing With Direct Authorization for 
    Appropriations; Housing and Home Finance Administrator

Sec. 35.6 Language in a general appropriation bill terminating the 
    authority of the Housing and Home Finance Administrator to finance 
    mass transportation projects through the issuance of notes and 
    obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
    substituting a direct authorization for appropriation for financing 
    based on a public-debt transaction, was conceded to be legislation 
    and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9169), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 19730, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Mass Transportation Loans and Grants

        For loans including purchase of securities and obligations in 
    connection with mass transportation facilities, as authorized by 
    clause (2) of section 202(a) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as 
    amended (42 U.S.C. 1492; 75 Stat. 173), and grants in connection 
    with mass transportation demonstration projects, as authorized by 
    section 103(b) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
    1453; 75 Stat. 166), $42,500,000, of which not to exceed $130,000 
    shall be available for administrative expenses in connection 
    therewith, and on and after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
    authority to issue notes and other obligations for the purposes of 
    clause (2) of section 202(a) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as 
    amended, shall cease, and in lieu of such authority $50,000,000 is 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated for such purpose, and the 
    proviso to the first sentence of section 103(b) of the Housing Act 
    of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
    ``may'' the phrase ``within the limits of appropriations made 
    available therefor and''.
        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rains: . . . Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make this point of 
    order. This is not an opportunity to save money; this is an 
    opportunity completely to change the law.
        This language would terminate the authority of the Housing and 
    Home Fi

[[Page 5828]]

    nance Administrator under section 202 of the Housing Amendments of 
    1955 to borrow from the Treasury. So it hits the big problem to 
    provide funds for loans to public bodies to purchase mass 
    transportation facilities.
        It would also amend section 103(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 
    by limiting the Administrator's contract authority for grants for 
    mass transportation demonstration projects to amounts within the 
    limits of the appropriation made available by the contracts; and 
    for that reason, because it is evidently legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, I must regretfully make the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: May I repeat, the committee is 
    trying to make these paragraphs on mass transportation work, not 
    cripple them, but make them work for loans and grants. There is no 
    limitation on who can get the money; the only limitation is in the 
    grant money. These are demonstration grants to be used to buy 
    equipment if you look at it carefully. Private utilities can do it 
    and public utilities. But, anyway, the committee went along with 
    it. It is back-door spending pure and unadulterated, and all we did 
    was to try to put back in the Congress control over the money.
        If my friend insists on his point of order I will have to join 
    him and make a point of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order 
    against the entire paragraph on the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Discharge of Commodity Credit Corporation Indebtedness

Sec. 35.7 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of the Treasury to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes 
    issued by the corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury in a 
    specific amount under the International Wheat Agreement Act was 
    conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in 
    order.

    On May 17, 1951,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3973), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 5469, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       international wheat agreement

        The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes issued by the 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury in the amount of 
    $76,808,000 for the net costs during the fiscal year 1950 under the 
    Inter

[[Page 5829]]

    national Wheat Agreement Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1641-1642).
        Mr. [Ed] Gossett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gossett: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph on page 50, lines 5 to 12, inclusive, International Wheat 
    Agreement, on the ground that that is a new authorization and a 
    direction to the Secretary of the Treasury to handle this item 
    contrary to the manner in which it has been handled, and therefore 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Forgiving Interest on Debt; Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 35.8 Language in an appropriation bill providing that funds 
    borrowed from the Treasury by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    shall not bear interest to the extent that the CCC incurs 
    unreimbursed losses, was conceded to be legislation and ruled out 
    on a point of order.

    On May 20, 1964,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 11202), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 11426, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 30, line 1:

                         ``Commodity Credit Corporation

                    ``Reimbursement for net Realized Losses

            ``To partially reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        for net realized losses sustained during the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1963, pursuant to the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 
        U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), $1,724,000,000: Provided, That after 
        June 30, 1963, the portion of borrowings from Treasury equal to 
        the unreimbursed realized losses recorded on the books of the 
        Corporation after June 30 of the fiscal year in which such 
        losses are realized, shall not bear interest and interest shall 
        not be accrued or paid thereon.''

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 30, line 7 through 11, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . The gentleman's 
    point of order is well taken and we acknowledge it, but I should 
    like to say for the record that what this amounts to is that this 
    cost will continue to pyramid

[[Page 5830]]

    bookkeeping-wise and interest will be added to it, so that 
    Agriculture will be charged with more and more interest every year. 
    We think that should be corrected and we tried to do it in this 
    way. But we confess the validity of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Mississippi has conceded 
    the validity of the point of order.

Sec. 35.9 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing and 
    directing the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge indebtedness 
    of a government corporation in the amount of its capital impairment 
    on a certain date by canceling notes issued by such corporation to 
    the Treasury was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and held not in order.

    On May 1, 1952,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill (H.R. 7314), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 4741, 4742, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further point of order addressed to the same title and to the 
    provision beginning in line 9 and running down to, and including 
    line 17.
        There also we have legislation in an appropriation bill in that 
    it authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    discharge an indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the extent of $120,000,000. That obviously can be done only by 
    legislation which properly should come before the Banking and 
    Currency Committee. If the Commodity Credit Corporation can make 
    out a case it will probably get the authorizing and proper 
    legislation. This is not the way to do it. This, in effect, changes 
    the authorization by increasing it to the extent of $120,000,000. 
    It is now $4,750,000,000, as fixed by law. This would, in effect, 
    increase that authorization by another $120,000,000.
        The reference to the statute in the last two lines of the 
    section merely fixes the method of determining any impairment of 
    the capital of the Commodity Credit Corporation and does not 
    authorize a discharge of any indebtedness.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    have to admit the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman concedes the point 
    of order and it is, therefore, sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee Valley Authority; Repayment of Interest

Sec. 35.10 In an appropriation bill a provision that hereafter the 
    Tennessee Valley Authority shall pay into the Treasury interest on 
    the amounts invested by the Authority in

[[Page 5831]]

    power facilities and that no limit shall be placed by the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority on resale rates of power fixed by local 
    distributors was conceded and held to be legislation.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8583), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 4131, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
        ch. 12A), including purchase (not to exceed 1) and hire, 
        maintenance, and operation of aircraft, and purchase (not to 
        exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor 
        vehicles $103,582,000, to remain available until expended, and 
        to be available for the payment of obligations chargeable 
        against prior appropriations: . . . Provided further, That 
        hereafter the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley 
        Authority shall pay each year to miscellaneous receipts of the 
        Treasury from power revenues interest on the amounts invested 
        by the Authority in power-facility properties, including 
        construction in progress, from appropriations heretofore and 
        hereafter made to the Authority and on amounts equal to the 
        book value at the time of the transfer of power-facility 
        properties obtained from other Federal agencies without 
        reimbursement by the Authority, less amounts of capital 
        returned to the Treasury from such revenues. The rate of 
        interest shall be equal to the average rate of interest paid by 
        the Treasury of the United States, during the prior fiscal 
        year, on the public debt: Provided further, That no limitation 
        shall be placed by the Tennessee Valley Authority on resale 
        rates of power fixed by local distributors.

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 43, line 25, 
    after the colon, and all the language in the paragraph on page 44 
    on the ground that it proposes legislation in a general 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Public Debt Transaction Financing Mechanism

Sec. 35.11 Language in an appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary 
    of the Treasury to use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds 
    from the sales of any securities issued under the Second Liberty 
    Bond Act was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 5832]]

Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation bill (H.R. 7786), 
the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. On page 200, line 16, beginning with the words--

            Provided further,  That for the purpose of making loans 
        pursuant to the foregoing authority, the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized to use as a public-debt transaction the 
        proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the 
        Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which 
        securities may be issued under that act are extended to include 
        such loans to the Secretary: Provided further, That repayments 
        to the Secretary of the Treasury on such loans shall be treated 
        as a public-debt transaction.

        I make the point of order that that language involves 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. However, I do this in order 
    to protect the record at this point and would be very glad to 
    reserve the point of order and ask for an explanation of what is 
    attempted to be accomplished by this proviso. My point is that it 
    may be something highly desirable to which I would not want to make 
    a point of order. Off hand it looks to me clearly like legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, but perhaps it may be desirable 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: This language was 
    included to facilitate the handling of the program which is set out 
    above in the bill. It is merely technical, as is apparent, and is 
    just in order to facilitate the handling of the matter by the 
    Treasury Department and, as I understand, was originally included 
    at the insistence of the Treasury Department to so facilitate it. I 
    am not prepared to say whether it is or is not legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I do say that it is economy to keep it in 
    rather than strike it out. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair would invite attention to the fact that the language 
    appearing in this proviso, ``the Secretary of the Treasury is 
    authorized to use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from 
    the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond 
    Act,'' and so forth, would appear to be clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, in violation of the rules of the House.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Authorizing Secretary of Treasury to Adjust Levels of Appropriations

Sec. 35.12 In a general appropriation bill a provision authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the Bureau of the 
    Budget, to make specified adjustments in appropriations made by the 
    paragraph to reflect the amount of certain tax receipts was held to 
    constitute legislation and such paragraph was ruled out.

[[Page 5833]]

    On Apr. 18, 1951,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Labor and Federal Security 
Agency appropriation bill (H.R. 3709), a point of order was raised 
against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 4093, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       Title V--Railroad Retirement Board

            Payment to railroad retirement account: For an annual 
        premium to provide for the payment of all annuities, pensions, 
        and death benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 
        Railroad Retirement Acts of 1935 and 1937, as amended (45 
        U.S.C. 228-228s), and for expenses necessary for the Railroad 
        Retirement Board in the administration of said acts as may be 
        specifically authorized annually in appropriation acts, there 
        is hereby appropriated for crediting monthly to the railroad 
        retirement account for the fiscal year 1952, and for each 
        fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to the amount covered 
        into the Treasury (minus refunds) during each such fiscal year 
        under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 1500-1538): 
        [Provided, That the appropriation made herein for the fiscal 
        year 1952 shall be adjusted by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
        with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, in such manner 
        as may be necessary to insure that the railroad retirement 
        account shall be credited for an amount equal to the amounts 
        covered into the Treasury (minus refunds) prior to July 1, 
        1951, under said Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and under the 
        Carriers Taxing Act of 1937, as amended, less (1) amounts 
        credited as premiums to the railroad retirement account 
        (excluding $334,429,100 heretofore appropriated for military 
        service credits) and (2) amounts properly chargeable as 
        administrative expenses of the Railroad Retirement Board, prior 
        to July 1, 1951.]

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 36, the proviso 
    beginning after the colon on line 4 and going down to the period on 
    line 16. This is legislation on an appropriation bill. Obviously, 
    this goes beyond the scope of the bill and beyond the appropriation 
    provisions of the bill. It is similar in nature to the language to 
    which I made objection last year at the same time.
        The Chairman: (17) Will the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania define the specific language in the bill to which he 
    raises the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: The point of order is to the legislative intent and 
    the legislative provision of the entire proviso.
        As I read this, I construe (it) in effect as amounting to a 
    repealer of existing legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Do I understand that the 
    gentleman makes a point of order only to the language on page 36 
    beginning at line 4, that is under the proviso?
        Mr. Flood: That is correct.
        The Chairman: And ending on line 16?
        Mr. Flood: That is correct.
        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    concede the point of order.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 5834]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: Would not the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman go to the entire paragraph?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania so made the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania a moment ago if his point of order was to the proviso 
    only and I understand the gentleman to say that it was.
        Mr. Flood: That was true. That was the point of order I made, 
    but I have no objection to making a subsequent point of order this 
    time to make a point of order against the entire paragraph.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Wolverton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, so 
    that there may be no misunderstanding about the situation, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York concede the 
    point of order to the entire paragraph?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph, in view of the discussion which has just taken 
    place.
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order now takes in the entire 
    paragraph beginning on page 35 and ending at line 16, page 36. . . 
    .
        And the gentleman from New York [Mr. McGrath] concedes the 
    point of order. The point of order is sustained.