[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[C. Provisions as "Changing Existing Law," Generally]
[Â§ 39. Subject Matter: Agriculture]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5894-5904]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
        C. PROVISIONS AS ``CHANGING EXISTING LAW,'' GENERALLY
 
Sec. 39. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Sharecropper Participation in Conservation

Sec. 39.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing that 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States and who comply with the 
    agriculture conservation program shall be entitled to receive 
    payment for their participation in said program as other producers, 
    was held to be legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3492, 3494, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman has other points of 
    order against the paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Yes.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman indicate those?
        Mr. Fulmer: On page 67, line 16, down to and including line 3, 
    on page 68, which language is as follows: ``Provided further, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States Government and who comply with 
    the terms and conditions of the 1943 agricultural conservation 
    program, formulated pursuant to sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, shall be 
    entitled to apply for and receive payments, or to retain payments 
    heretofore made, for their participation in said program to the 
    same extent as other producers'' . . . on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill without any authorization in 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 16 and running down to and 
    including the word ``producers'' in line 25 that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. With the information available to the 
    Chair, the Chair is of the opinion that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and sustains the point of order.

Soil Conservation Payments

Sec. 39.2 Where existing law provides a flat $10,000 limitation on the 
    amount any person may receive as soil conservation payments, an 
    amendment limiting such payments to $10,000 unless the pay

[[Page 5895]]

    ment is in respect to more than one farm and adding a reporting 
    requirement was held legislation and not in order.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5269), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 3428, 3429, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
        Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert: ``Provided further, 
        That no payment from these funds for any one year shall be made 
        to any person or corporation in excess of $10,000 unless the 
        payment is with respect to more than one farm and then only if 
        the excess be in the total of payments to a landlord who shall 
        furnish to the Secretary of Agriculture a certificate from the 
        county committee in which his farms are located stating that 
        his division of the proceeds of that farm's benefit payments 
        with the renter or sharecropper are fair and customary in the 
        community.

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a moment.
        On page 5, section 102, of the present act there is a flat 
    $10,000 limitation on the amount that any person may receive. 
    Insofar as this amendment is effective at all, it changes this 
    provision, but it stipulates that if there is more than one farm 
    the $10,000 shall apply only to each farm. That is a clear change 
    in the law because he stipulates if there is more than one farm 
    then the $10,000 flat limitation in the present law shall be of no 
    force and effect. Certainly that is a change in the law. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that the amendment, although in the guise of a limitation, is 
    legislative in nature and not in order on an appropriation bill. 
    The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level of Federal Taxable Income as Eligibility for Payments

Sec. 39.3 To an appropriation bill an amendment providing that a 
    participant in the soil conservation program could not qualify ``if 
    his net individual income for Federal income-tax purposes is in 
    excess of $10,000 in 1952'' was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On May 20, 1953,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 5227), a point of order was raised against an amendment offered 
to the following portion of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 5244, 5263, 5264, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 5896]]

            . . . 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 . . . Provided further, That 
        such amount shall be available for salaries and other 
        administrative expenses in connection with the formulation and 
        administration of the 1954 program of soil-building practices 
        and soil- and water-conserving practices, under the act of 
        February 29, 1936, as amended (amounting to $195 million, 
        including administration, and formulated on the basis of a 
        distribution of the funds available for payments and grants 
        among the several States in accordance with their conservation 
        needs as determined by the Secretary, except that the 
        proportion allocated to any State shall not be reduced more 
        than 15 percent from the distribution for the next preceding 
        program year, and no participant shall receive more than 
        $2,500); but the payments or grants under such programs shall 
        be conditioned upon the utilization of land with respect to 
        which such payments or grants are to be made in conformity with 
        farming practices which will encourage and provide for soil-
        building and soil- and water-conserving practices in the most 
        practical and effective manner and adapted to conditions in the 
        several States, as determined and approved by the State 
        committees appointed pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
        590h (b)), for the respective States. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fulton: Page 31, line 22, strike 
        out the figure ``$2,500'' and insert ``$1,000 nor qualify as a 
        participant for payments of grants of assistance under such 
        program if his net individual income for Federal income-tax 
        purposes is in excess of $10,000 in 1952.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William M. McCulloch (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: This amendment would require affirmative action by 
    the Secretary of Agriculture or someone acting for him. It would 
    require the disclosure of income of individual citizens, which 
    information is prohibited by law from being made public. It would 
    require affirmative and special action by someone in the 
    Government, which would make it legislation upon an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As has been 
    indicated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton], the 
    amendment imposes a qualification upon participants in this 
    program. Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the offered 
    amendment proposes legislation on an appropriation bill and is, 
    therefore, subject to a point of order. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Price Minimum on Agricultural Purchases

Sec. 39.4 A provision in a general appropriation bill that ``agri

[[Page 5897]]

    cultural products . . . purchased or obtained under this program 
    shall be at not less than'' a designated price was conceded and 
    held to be legislation and not in order.

    On June 28, 1952,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
8370), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 8501, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on lines 16 to 22 on page 36 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. That language is 
    as follows:

             Provided further, That agricultural products or products 
        produced from agricultural products purchased or obtained under 
        this program shall be at not less than the average market price 
        prevailing for such commodity or commodities within the United 
        States or the support price for such commodity or commodities, 
        whichever is the greater.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    the author of that language in the bill. I confess that it is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman concede the 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Restriction on Uses of Loans, Rural Electrification

Sec. 39.5 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    providing that certain loans under the Rural Electrification 
    Administration shall be exclusively for purchasing and financing 
    the construction and operation of generating plants and facilities 
    for furnishing electric energy to persons in rural areas who are 
    not receiving central station service, was held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following ruling was made by Chairman William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 3588, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Oklahoma offers an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] in 
    the following words:

            Provided, That these loans shall be exclusively for the 
        purpose of financing the construction and operation of 
        generating plants, electric transmission and distribution lines 
        or systems for the furnishing of electric energy to persons in 
        rural areas who are not receiving central station service.

[[Page 5898]]

         The Chair is unable to see where there is any limitation in 
    the language used and concludes it is legislation, therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation Loan Authority Extended

Sec. 39.6 A provision in a general appropriation bill appropriating 
    money for the purchase of property by the Rural Electrification 
    Administration and providing that such sum be borrowed from the 
    Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and directing the corporation 
    to lend such amount notwithstanding certain provisions of law, was 
    conceded and held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Feb. 2, 1940,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8202), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 1033, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            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: (13) The gentleman from Missouri 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidation and Continuation of Authorities

Sec. 39.7 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill to 
    enable the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Farm Credit 
    Administration and through existing agencies under its 
    administration to administer all activities, projects, and 
    functions heretofore carried on under the caption ``Loans, grants, 
    and rural rehabilitation'' was conceded and held to be legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5899]]

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(14) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 3592, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Loans and Rural Rehabilitation

            Making and servicing loans: To enable the Secretary, 
        through the Farm Credit Administration and through existing 
        agencies under its supervision, including the Crop and Feed 
        Loan Division and production credit associations, to administer 
        all activities, projects, facilities, and functions heretofore 
        carried on under the caption, ``Loans, grants, and rural 
        rehabilitation,'' the continuance of which is authorized under 
        the terms of this appropriation, and to provide assistance to 
        needy farmers in the United States, its Territories and 
        possessions, unable to obtain credit elsewhere, through making 
        and servicing of loans under this and prior law, $12,000,000. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph just read on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.

        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Money From Timber Sales

Sec. 39.8 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    proposing that 10 percent of all moneys received from timber sales 
    by each national forest during each fiscal year shall be available 
    to be expended by the Secretary of Agriculture for recreational 
    purposes within such national forest was held to be legislation and 
    not in order.

    On Apr. 5, 1949,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3997), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 3948, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Boyd] Tackett [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tackett: On page 39, line 13, 
        insert the following paragraph:
            ``Forest recreational purposes: Ten percent of all moneys 
        received from timber sales by each national forest during each 
        fiscal year shall be available at the end thereof to be 
        expended by the Secretary of Agriculture for recreational 
        purposes within such national forest.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I regret 
    to

[[Page 5900]]

    have to make a point of order against the amendment, but I must do 
    so. I make the point of order that the amendment is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        I think the approach the gentleman is making is sound, but I 
    believe it should be considered by the appropriate legislative 
    committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair considers the amendment to be strictly legislation on 
    an appropriation bill by virtue of the fact that it does not call 
    for money to be appropriated out of the Treasury but directs that 
    certain things be done with the receipts from the sale of timber.
        For that reason the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bank Audits

Sec. 39.9 A proviso in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    that the federal land banks and joint stock land banks shall be 
    examined once a year instead of at least twice as provided by law, 
    and changing the law with reference to salaries of employees 
    engaged in such examinations, was conceded and held to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(18) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 3590, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Farm Credit Administration

                             salaries and expenses

            For salaries and expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
        in the District of Columbia and the field . . . Provided, That 
        the requirement (12 U.S.C. 952) that Federal land banks and 
        joint stock land banks shall be examined at least twice each 
        year is hereby modified so that such examinations need be made 
        only once each year: Provided further, That the expenses and 
        salaries of employees engaged in such examinations shall be 
        assessed against the said corporations, banks, or institutions 
        in accordance with the provisions of existing laws except that 
        the amounts collected from the Federal land banks, joint stock 
        land banks, and Federal intermediate credit banks pursuant to 
        the act of July 17, 1916, as amended (12 U.S.C. 657) shall be 
        covered into the Treasury and credited to a special fund. . . .

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the language beginning with the word 
    ``proviso'', line 15, page 84, continuing on down to and including 
    the word ``thereto'' in line 4, page 86, is legislation not 
    authorized by law on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: The point of order is 
    conceded.
        The Chairman: (19) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Whittington (Miss.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5901]]

Definition of Terms

Sec. 39.10 To an agricultural appropriation bill, an amendment 
    curtailing the use of funds therein for price support payments to 
    any person in excess of $30,000 per year and providing that ``for 
    the purpose of this (amendment) the term `person' shall mean an 
    individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company,'' or the like, 
    was ruled out as legislation.

    On May 26, 1965,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 8370), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 11655, 11656, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 33, line 24, after 
        the word ``hereof'', strike the period, insert a colon and the 
        following: ``Provided further: (a) That none of the funds 
        herein appropriated may be used to formulate or carry out price 
        support programs during the period ending June 30, 1966, under 
        which a total amount of price support payments in excess of 
        $30,000 would be made to any person . . . (b) That for the 
        purposes of this proviso the term `person' shall mean an 
        individual partnership, firm, joint stock company, corporation, 
        association, trust, estate or other legal entity, or a State, 
        political subdivision of a State, or any agency thereof.'' . . 
        .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to read, if I may, the first part of the amendment, as I make 
    the point of order against it:

            Provided, That none of the funds herein appropriated may be 
        used to formulate or carry out price support programs during 
        the period ending June 30, 1966, under which a total amount of 
        price support payments in excess of $30,000 would be made to 
        any person.

        I respectfully submit that this not only would require some new 
    duties but also would require the opening up of individual 
    accounts. This makes it quite clearly subject to a point of order.
        I might point out that subsection (b), where the definitions 
    are given, would require a determination and also would call for 
    special duties.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the Chair correctly 
    understand that the gentleman from Mississippi has stated his point 
    of order against the pending amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Yes.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard on the 
    point of order. I submit, Mr. Chairman, it falls strictly within 
    the Holman rule on retrenching, as a limitation. The Department of 
    Agriculture has all kinds of statisticians. We appropriate money 
    for them. They have the wherewithal to make any kind of 
    determination we see fit to legislate. In this sense, it is a 
    retrenchment, in my opinion.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has read the amendment offered by 
    the

[[Page 5902]]

    gentleman from Illinois. The Chair is of the opinion that even 
    though any limitation imposed upon an executive agency may add to 
    the burdens of that executive agency, a limitation of an 
    appropriation is in good order. The Chair, therefore, would say to 
    the gentleman from Illinois that in the opinion of this occupant of 
    the Chair, he has offered an amendment which is in form a 
    limitation. But in addition thereto, he has added language which 
    defines a person, and in the opinion of the Chair that language is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is therefore out of order.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Agricultural Conservation Committees; Capping Allotments for Soil 
    Conservation Services

Sec. 39.11 Language in an appropriation bill providing that the county 
    agricultural conservation committee in any county ``with the 
    approval of the State Committee'' may allot not to exceed five per 
    centum of its allocation for the agriculture conservation program 
    to the Soil Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
    carrying out the program, was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) during consideration of H.R. 7786 
[the Department of Agriculture chapter, general appropriation bill, 
1951], a point of order was raised against language as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5914, 5915, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the following language beginning in line 17 
    on page 191--

            Provided further, That the county agricultural conservation 
        committee in any county with the approval of the State 
        committee may allot not to exceed 5 percent of its allocation 
        for the agricultural conservation program to the Soil 
        Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
        formulating and carrying out the agricultural conservation 
        program and the funds so allotted shall be utilized by the Soil 
        Conservation Service for technical and other assistance in such 
        county--

        That it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The language 
    contained in these lines has to do with the administration of the 
    programs in two separate agencies of the Department of Agriculture, 
    which ought to come before a proper legislative committee to have 
    legal determination made. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    answer to the statement by the gentleman from Minnesota, I point 
    out that this provision was written in the bill last year after 
    conference with and with the approval of the members of the 
    legislative Committee on Agriculture. It is an

[[Page 5903]]

    effort on the part of our committee to more properly utilize the 
    various specialists of the two agricultural programs.
        Under the present law, these two agricultural agencies are 
    authorized to utilize the services of other agencies. In effect, by 
    fixing it at 5 percent, I think we are on sound ground in insisting 
    on the limitation. It is a limitation in the amount which can be 
    used for a particular purpose, whereas, in the absence of the 5-
    percent figure, each agency could use the services of the other, 
    and under the general law would have a right to compensate the 
    other for services rendered. I think under the general provisions 
    of the law that is true. The 5-percent provision is a limitation 
    rather than legislation or an authorization. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Is it the contention of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi that, under existing law, without 
    this limitation an allotment might be made in excess of 5 percent?
        Mr. Whitten: I do not know as to the use of the word 
    ``allotment,'' but under the Economy Act of 1932, section 601, any 
    agency is entitled to use and is authorized to use the services of 
    another agency and to pay for such services.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the basic act, the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, is it not true that these 
    technical and other services could be provided?
        Mr. Whitten: They could be. The point that we are trying to get 
    at here is that the Production and Marketing Administration is 
    entitled to this type of service, and in many cases has to go out 
    and hire and train additional specialists while the Federal 
    Government is paying such specialists, who are doing the same kind 
    of work.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: That is right.
        Mr. Whitten: They would be authorized to use the services of 
    the Soil Conservation Service beyond this 5 percent. May I point 
    out that the citation of the act is 31 United States Code, section 
    686. The 5-percent provision here is not compulsory. By its 
    insertion we hope to be able to get these two agencies to use the 
    services of the other, instead of going out in two directions. I 
    think we are on sound ground in our objective and in our approach 
    to reach that objective. They already have authority to use these 
    services, but by putting this provision in we stress our intention 
    that they make use of the services. I think it will result in 
    economy, if they do make use of the services. I may say that the 
    Department has just begun to make use of them, and, from the 
    reports that I am now getting, it is doing a great deal of good.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: If I understand the gentleman 
    correctly, this service could be carried on by the Production and 
    Marketing Administration itself?
        Mr. Whitten: And in most cases it is, with absolute disregard 
    of the fact that technical people are already drawing pay from the 
    Federal Government who could do the work.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman has cited the act and 
    also pointed out that existing law authorizes the agency to utilize 
    the services of another agency to carry out its authorized 
    functions.

[[Page 5904]]

        Mr. Whitten: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Marshall] has made a point of 
    order against the language appearing in that section of the bill on 
    page 191 beginning with the word ``Provided'' in line 17, and 
    continuing through the remainder of that paragraph down to and 
    including the word ``county'' in line 25, on the ground that it 
    includes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair has examined the language here in question and is of 
    the opinion that it could be drawn so as to constitute a 
    limitation, but as the language appears now in the bill it does 
    appear to the Chair that it contains legislation. The Chair, of 
    course, has to pass on the question as it is here presented and 
    invites attention to the fact that among other things it includes 
    the words ``with the approval.'' It appears to the Chair that the 
    language quoted does include legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in violation of the rules of the House.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A subsequent amendment to the bill that 
day, providing, inter alia, that ``not to exceed 5 percent of the 
allocation for the agricultural conservation program for any county may 
be allocated to the Soil Conservation Service'' for services of its 
technicians in carrying out the agricultural conservation program, was 
held to be a limitation, restricting the availability of funds and 
therefore in order. See Sec. 67.13, infra.