[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[E. Provisions as Changing Existing Law; Provisions Affecting Executive Authority; Imposition of New Duties on Officials]
[Â§ 57. Subject Matter: Agriculture]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6160-6179]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
    E. PROVISIONS AS CHANGING EXISTING LAW: PROVISIONS AFFECTING 
     EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY; IMPOSITION OF NEW DUTIES ON OFFICIALS
 
Sec. 57. Subject Matter: Agriculture

No Funds to Countries Engaging in Trade With North Vietnam

Sec. 57.1 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no funds appropriated thereby shall be used to administer programs 
    for

[[Page 6161]]

    the sale of agricultural commodities to nations that permit ships 
    under their registry to transport equipment to Communist North 
    Vietnam was held a proper limitation not imposing additional 
    duties.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596, a bill appropriating funds for the Department 
of Agriculture. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8969, 8970, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 36, on line 6 
        strike the period, insert a colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of 
        agricultural commodities pursuant to titles I or IV of Public 
        Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which 
        sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its 
        registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment, materials 
        or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed by a 
        Communist regime.''. . .

        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it imposes new duties, new 
    responsibilities, and determinations beyond the ability of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, who administers this program, to 
    determine. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair would state that it is satisfied that established 
    precedents [justify] its holding the language of the proposed 
    amendment as a limitation on the appropriation, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Allocation of State Agricultural Funds; Grant of Authority Instead of 
    Negative Restriction

Sec. 57.2 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 agricultural 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,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 6162]]

Whole of H.R. 7786 (Department of Agriculture chapter, general 
appropriation bill, 1951), a point of order was raised against the 
following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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. . . .
        The Chairman:(18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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.

Price Support Program; Limiting Payments But Requiring New Duties

Sec. 57.3 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment limiting the 
    use of funds for payments to farmers but at

[[Page 6163]]

    the same time providing definitions, new authorizations, and 
    imposing additional duties on the Secretary of Agriculture was 
    ruled out as legislation.

    On June 6, 1961,(19) 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 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19. 107 Cong. Rec. 9626, 9627, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery (of Kansas): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: On page 33, line 22, strike 
        out the period, and add ``: Provided further, (1) That no part 
        of this authorization shall be used to formulate or carry out a 
        price support program for 1962 under which a total amount of 
        price support in excess of $50,000 would be extended through 
        loans, purchases, or purchase agreements made or made available 
        by Commodity Credit Corporation to any person on the 1962 
        production of all agricultural commodities, (2) That 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, (3) That in the case of any loan 
        to, or purchase from, a cooperative marketing organization, 
        such limitation shall not apply to the amount of price support 
        received by the cooperative marketing organization, but the 
        amount of price support made available to any person through 
        such cooperative marketing organization shall be included in 
        determining the amount of price support received by such person 
        for purposes of such limitation, and (4) That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture shall issue regulations prescribing such rules as 
        he determines necessary to prevent the evasion of such 
        limitation''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It provides for new duties on the part of the 
    Secretary of Agriculture, in addition to other legislative 
    provisions.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Kansas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Avery: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        As I recall it, about 2 years ago right now, in 1959, I think 
    the distinguished gentleman from Texas was in the chair that day; 
    if not the gentleman from Texas presently in the chair, it was one 
    of his Texas colleagues. When I submitted the original amendment to 
    this same section of the appropriation bill, the gentleman from 
    Mississippi raised a point of order against the amendment. After a 
    considerable amount of deliberation, shall I say, the Chairman 
    upheld the amendment as being a further limitation on the 
    administrative costs of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
    Therefore, the point of order was not sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas offers an amendment which has been 
    reported. The Chair would observe it was probably this chairman who 
    occupied

[[Page 6164]]

    the chair on the occasion the gentleman from Kansas referred to. It 
    was apparently on the 18th of May 1959.
        The Chair did not understand the gentleman from Kansas to state 
    that the amendment now pending is in identical language as that 
    which was offered in 1959. . . .
        The Chair has the language which was before the Chair in 1959, 
    and will read it:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: Page 27, line 19, strike 
        out the period, add a colon and insert: ``Further, no funds 
        appropriated in this section shall be used to process Commodity 
        Credit loans which are in excess of $50,000.''

        The Chair points out that that language was directly, solely 
    and exclusively directed at the purpose for which funds being 
    appropriated at that time could be used.
        The Chair has examined the pending amendment, and while the 
    first sentence of the pending amendment would indicate that it is 
    in the nature of a limitation, it does refer to authorizations. 
    This is the crux of the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chair points out that the language of the amendment 
    contains definitions, authorizations, and imposes duties upon an 
    officer of the executive department. It is therefore clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It is not identical or, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, similar to the amendment offered in 1959.
        The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Price Support Programs; Equating Costs to Import Quotas

Sec. 57.4 To a general appropriation bill an amendment requiring that 
    when funds in the bill are used to institute agricultural price 
    support for any commodity the Secretary of the Treasury be notified 
    and that he make certain adjustments on the import duty on such 
    commodity was conceded to be legislation and held not in order.

    On May 1, 1952,(1) during consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill (H.R. 
7314), a point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 4743, 4744, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Page 
    45, line 16, after the word ``law'': insert the following: 
    ``Provided, That when any funds contained in this appropriation are 
    used to institute agricultural price support for any commodity, the 
    Secretary of the Treasury shall be notified of such support program 
    and shall make such adjustments in the import duty on such 
    commodity as are necessary so that the duty paid price in United 
    States dollars is not less than the parity price announced by the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for the marketing season of the 
    commodity.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. I do not differ with the object of the 
    gentleman, but I think that it is legis

[[Page 6165]]

    lation. However, I will reserve the point of order so that the 
    gentleman may make his presentation. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman concede the 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. D'Ewart: I do.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Payments to Feed Grain Producers; Limiting to Percent of Diverted 
    Acreage

Sec. 57.5 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment limiting any payments to feed grain 
    producers to 20 percent of the fair market value of acreage 
    diverted under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 
    was held a proper limitation imposing only incidental additional 
    duties on the executive branch (the requirements as to 
    determination of the fair market value of such acreage being 
    already contained in law).

    On May 26, 1965,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8370. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 11656, 11657, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Page 33, line 24, after the word ``hereof'', strike the 
        period, insert a colon and the following: ``Provided further: 
        That none of the funds herein appropriated may be used to 
        formulate or carry out a feed grain program during the period 
        ending June 30, 1966, under which the total amount of payments 
        made to feed grain producers under section 16(h) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, and 
        section 105(d) of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, 
        would be in excess of 20 per centum of the fair market value of 
        any acreage diverted under section 16(h) of the Soil 
        Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The existing law expires this year, as I understand it. Whether 
    it will be extended or not I do not know. The proponent of the 
    amendment says this extends existing law. That statement of itself 
    means that it is legislation. Quite definitely you cannot extend 
    existing law without its being legislation. On that basis, I 
    respectfully submit that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point 
    out that the basic legislation determines the limit according to 
    the average yield of the land. This would determine the limit 
    according to the sales value of land, whether that be speculative 
    or productive. And it would cost an additional $9 million to make 
    these appraisals. This is $9 million worth of additional duties 
    placed upon the Secretary of Agriculture and does represent 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill. . . .

[[Page 6166]]

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully read the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois and even though a limitation, as was stated 
    before, on an appropriation bill, may impose additional burdens on 
    the executive branch of the Government; and even though it might be 
    estimated that the cost of those additional burdens may run to any 
    amount, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois is, in fact, a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and therefore overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in Public Law No. 88-26 
(subsection h) the same precise requirements for determining fair 
market value of acreage diverted during the prior crop year were in law 
[see 16 U.S.C. Sec. 590p(h)].

Prohibiting Commodity Storage Charges Not Determined by Competitive 
    Bidding

Sec. 57.6 To an agricultural appropriation bill, including funds for 
    the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of funds therein to pay storage charges on commodities owned by the 
    corporation, when such charges have not been determined by 
    competitive bidding, was held to impose additional duties on the 
    corporation to require competitive bidding and was ruled out as 
    legislation.

    On May 26, 1965,(5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 11654, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert R.] Casey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: On page 33, immediately 
        before the period at the end of line 2, insert the following: 
        ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds appropriated by 
        this Act shall be used for the payment of charges for storage 
        of any agriculture commodity belonging to the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation which charges have not been determined by 
        competitive bidding.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment, quite patently, would require 
    extra work on the part of the employees of the Department. They 
    would have to make a finding as to what part had been made by 
    competitive bidding and what part had not. Since the present law 
    does not require competitive bidding, it would require different 
    duties from that required under existing law. For that reason, I 
    think the amendment is legislating in an appropriation bill.

[[Page 6167]]

        The Chairman:(6) Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Casey] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Casey: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind saying that I consulted 
    with the Parliamentarian and I do not think my argument would be 
    sustained anyway and there is no use in taking the time of the 
    Committee in this regard.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Casey: No, sir; I do not concede the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this is strictly a limitation on the use 
    of these funds and I ask the Chairman to rule at this point that it 
    is germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment 
    directed to page 33, line 2, which reads as follows: ``Provided 
    further, That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used for the payment of charges for storage of any agricultural 
    commodity belonging to the Commodity Credit Corporation which 
    charges have not been determined by competitive bidding,'' to which 
    amendment the gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order 
    that this imposes additional substantive duties on the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation, and with that contention this occupant of the 
    chair is in complete agreement and, therefore, sustains the point 
    of order.

Poultry Inspection; Authorizing and Directing

Sec. 57.7 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Department of Agriculture is ``hereby authorized and directed to 
    make such inspection of poultry as it deems essential'' was 
    conceded to be legislation and was ruled out on a point of order.

    On May 11, 1960,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 10032, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Marketing services: For services relating to agricultural 
        marketing and distribution, for carrying out regulatory acts 
        connected therewith, and for administration and coordination of 
        payments to States, $26,838,000, including not to exceed 
        $25,000 for employment at rates not to exceed $50 per diem, 
        except for employment in rate cases at not to exceed $100 per 
        diem pursuant to the second sentence of 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), in carrying out 
        section 201(a) to 201(d), inclusive, of title II of the 
        Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1291) and section 
        203(j) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946: Provided, 
        That the Department is hereby authorized and directed to make 
        such inspection of poultry products processing plants as it 
        deems essential to the protection of public health and to 
        permit the use of appropriate inspection labels where it 
        determines from such in

[[Page 6168]]

        spection that such plants operate in a manner which protects 
        the public health, and not less than $500,000 shall be 
        available for this purpose.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language beginning in line 2, page 17, 
    commencing with the word ``Provided'', right down through the end 
    of that paragraph on page 17, line 9.
        This constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph, beginning in line 15, 
    page 16, through line 9 on page 17, on the ground it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee does not care to oppose the point of order. I do not 
    think there is any question but what points of order lie.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes both points of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Minnesota and the entire paragraph is 
    ruled out as legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soil Conservation Payments; Requiring Pass-through to Sharecroppers

Sec. 57.8 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    for soil conservation payments, an amendment providing that no 
    payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person or 
    corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid shall 
    be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which payments are 
    made was held to be legislation and not in order, in that, under 
    the guise of a limitation it provided affirmative directions that 
    imposed new duties.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(9) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 3427, 3428, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Page 89, line 9, after the colon, insert ``Provided further, That 
    of the funds in this paragraph no payment in excess of $1,000 shall 
    be paid for any one farm operated by one person: Provided further, 
    That no payment in excess of $1,000 shall be paid to any one person 
    or corporation unless at least one-half of the amounts so paid 
    shall be paid to sharecroppers or renters of farms for which 
    payments are made.'' . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota that it is legislation under the guise of a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a 
    limita

[[Page 6169]]

    tion on payments; and in the present instance one would have to 
    turn from the gentleman from Missouri as chairman of the 
    subcommittee to the gentleman from Missouri as parliamentarian. The 
    Chair will find the following on page 62 of Cannon's Procedure:

            As an appropriation bill may deny an appropriation for a 
        purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit the 
        use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for 
        the remainder of it. It may not legislate as to qualifications 
        of recipients, but may specify that no part shall go to 
        recipients lacking certain qualifications.

        In this particular instance the qualification is set up for the 
    landlord that he shall give at least half this payment to his 
    sharecropper or renter. Viewed in this light I believe the Chair 
    will find it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment 
    couples with the purported limitation affirmative directions and is 
    legislation in the guise of a limitation.
        The Chairman: (10) Cannon's Precedents, page 667, 
    volume 7, 1936, section 1672, states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            An amendment may not under guise of limitation provide 
        affirmative directions which impose new duties.

        The last part of the pending amendment states:

            Unless at least one-half of the amount so paid shall be 
        paid to these croppers or renters of farms for which payments 
        are made.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that this requires affirmative 
    action; therefore the point of order is sustained.

Agricultural Stations in Other Countries; Requiring Certification of 
    Adequate Domestic Funding

Sec. 57.9 To a section of an appropriation bill an amendment proposing 
    that ``no money shall be spent on agricultural stations or 
    experiments in other countries until the Secretary of Agriculture 
    certifies that such expenditure is a necessity and that 
    experimental work of a similar nature in the United States is 
    adequately financed,'' was held to be legislation and not in order.

    On Apr. 7, 1949,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 4016), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 4107, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips of California: Page 20, 
        line 10, after the word ``thereon'' and the semicolon, insert 
        ``Provided, That no money shall be spent on agricultural 
        stations or experiments in other countries until the Secretary 
        of Agriculture certifies that such expenditure is a necessity 
        and that experimental work of a similar nature in

[[Page 6170]]

        the United States is adequately financed.''

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed amendment on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from 
    California desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips of California: Mr. Chairman, I contend that it is 
    a limitation upon the expenditure of funds because it requires that 
    the necessity for them and the limitation for them be provided and 
    certified to before the money is expended.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire further 
    to be heard?
        Mr. Rooney: The statement that no money shall be spent is 
    clearly legislation; and it imposes additional duties on the 
    Department, which makes it legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from California [Mr. Phillips] introduces certain 
    language requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to make certain 
    findings. The Chair construes that language to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill in that it imposes additional duties upon the 
    agency involved. So, the point of order is sustained.

Farm Programs; Directing Secretary How to Administer

Sec. 57.10 Language in the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the 
    provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act through the 
    Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation and by utilizing through 
    cooperative agreements the personnel and facilities of the federal 
    land banks and the national farm associations was conceded to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    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. 3595, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries and expenses: To enable the Secretary to carry into 
    effect the provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 
    Act approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), and to reduce and 
    retrench expenditures, said act shall be administered by the 
    Secretary through the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation of the Farm 
    Credit Administration and by utilizing through cooperative 
    agreements the personnel and facilities of the Federal land banks 
    and the national farm-loan associations, $500,000 for necessary 
    expenses in connection with the making of loans under title I of 
    this act and the collection of moneys due the

[[Page 6171]]

    United States on account of loans heretofore made under the 
    provision of said act, including the employment of persons and 
    means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, exclusive of 
    printing and binding as authorized by said act.
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the paragraph for the reason that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Will the gentleman point 
    out what particular parts he feels are legislation?
        Mr. Cooley: The entire section, from line 19, on page 89, down 
    to and including line 8, on page 90.
        Mr. Tarver: So far as the section requires the Secretary to 
    carry out the duties to which reference is made in the paragraph 
    through the Federal Farm Mortgage Administration, of the Farm 
    Credit Administration, and to utilize the personnel and facilities 
    of the Federal land banks, it is legislation, and the committee at 
    the proper time will offer an amendment which will be in conformity 
    with the rules. We concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The point of order to the 
    paragraph is conceded and is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance Bonds; Authority to Require of Contractors

Sec. 57.11 Language in the agriculture appropriation bill permitting 
    the Secretary of Agriculture to require bonds from market agencies 
    and dealers under rules he may prescribe, and authorizing the 
    Secretary to suspend registrants if found insolvent, was conceded 
    to be legislation on an appropriation bill and held not in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943, (15) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 3586, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Packers and Stockyards Act: For carrying out the provisions 
        of the Packers and Stockyards Act, approved August 15, 1921, as 
        amended by the act of August 14, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 181-229), 
        $350,000: Provided, That the Secretary may require reasonable 
        bonds from every market agency and dealer, under such rules and 
        regulations as he may prescribe, to secure the performance of 
        their obligations, and whenever, after due notice and hearing, 
        the Secretary finds any registrant is insolvent or has violated 
        any provisions of said act, he may issue an order suspending 
        such registrant for a reasonable specified period. Such order 
        of suspension shall take effect within not less than 5 days, 
        unless suspended or modified or set aside by the Secretary or a 
        court of competent jurisdiction.

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the

[[Page 6172]]

    point of order against the language beginning with the word 
    ``Provided'' in line 17, page 80, down to the bottom of and 
    including line 3 on top of page 81, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Farming Materials; Requiring Secretary to Adhere to 
    State Laws

Sec. 57.12 An appropriation for distribution of seeds, fertilizers, or 
    any other farming materials, and providing that the Secretary of 
    Agriculture shall comply with such state laws when applicable to 
    such farming materials under his control, was conceded and held to 
    place additional duties on the Secretary of Agriculture and 
    therefore to comprise legislation on an appropriation bill.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3494, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hope: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language beginning in line 23 on page 66 with the words ``Provided 
    further,'' and running down through the word ``control'' in line 15 
    on page 67 is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from 
    Kansas on his point of order.
        Mr. Hope: Mr. Chairman, this proviso contains this language:

            That such amount shall be available for the distribution, 
        through established trade channels and non-governmental 
        agencies, including farmers' cooperative associations, of 
        seeds, fertilizers, lime, trees, or any other farming 
        materials, or any soil-terracing services, and making grants 
        thereof to agricultural producers to aid them in carrying out 
        farming practices approved by the Secretary in the 1943, 1944, 
        and 1945 programs under said act of February 29, 1936, as 
        amended.

        It further provides--
        for the reimbursement of any Federal, State, or local 
        government agency for fertilizers, seeds, lime, trees, or other 
        farming materials, or any soil-terracing services, furnished by 
        such agency; and for the payment of all expenses necessary in 
        making such grants including all or part of the costs incident 
        to the delivery thereof, and including the payment of 
        inspection fees or taxes for such inspections as may be 
        required under State laws, and the Secretary shall comply with 
        such State inspection laws whenever they are applicable to any 
        such farming materials under his control.

[[Page 6173]]

        I submit that all of that language is legislation. It imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary. It is not authorized under 
    any existing legislation. It further directs and orders that the 
    Secretary shall comply with State inspection laws whenever they are 
    applicable.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    shorten the debate, may I say to the gentleman that we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded. The point of 
    order is sustained.

Discretion to Transfer Property

Sec. 57.13 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the Secretary 
    of Agriculture in his discretion to transfer property and equipment 
    of the Hawaii Experiment Station to the experiment station of the 
    University of Hawaii was conceded to be legislation and held not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 15, 1943, (19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 2481), a point of order was raised by Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of 
Kansas, against the provision described above, on grounds that it 
constituted legislation. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 3421, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Georgia 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order is conceded.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Disease Eradication; Requiring Secretary to Cooperate With State 
    Authorities

Sec. 57.14 Language in an appropriation bill for ``determining and 
    applying such methods of eradication . . . of the disease . . . 
    known as `citrus canker' as in the judgment of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture may be necessary, including cooperation with such 
    authorities of the States concerned . . . as he may deem 
    necessary,'' was conceded and held to impose additional duties on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture and therefore to comprise legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill.

[[Page 6174]]

The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 3272, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Citrus canker eradication: For determining and applying such 
    methods of eradication or control of the disease of citrus trees 
    known as ``citrus canker'' as in the judgment of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture may be necessary, including cooperation with such 
    authorities of the States concerned, organizations of growers, or 
    individuals, as he may deem necessary to accomplish such purposes, 
    $13,485: Provided, That no part of the money herein appropriated 
    shall be used to pay the cost or value of trees or other property 
    injured or destroyed.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on page 54, lines 5 to 14, and call 
    attention to the fact that this paragraph delegates additional 
    duties to the Secretary of Agriculture. I call the Chair's 
    particular attention to the language in the first part of the 
    paragraph. . . .
        This clearly is a delegation of additional authority to the 
    Secretary and requires additional duties of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: What is the point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Taber: That it delegates additional duties to the Secretary 
    of Agriculture and requires additional responsibilities of him, and 
    thus is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is well taken.
        The Chairman: (2) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cotton Allotment Acres; Requiring New Conditions for Eligibility

Sec. 57.15 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for a program under which farmers who plant a 
    nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres are eligible for 
    federal set-aside payments was ruled out as legislation requiring 
    federal officials to make new determinations of eligibility not 
    required to be made by existing law.

    On June 16, 1976,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 14237), an amendment was offered against which a point of order 
was sustained, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 18666, 18667, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 17, line 22, strike 
        the period after the word ``regulations'' and insert the 
        following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        appropriated or made available under this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out a program for the 1977 crop year under 
        which producers who plant a nonconserving crop on

[[Page 6175]]

        cotton allotment acres are eligible for payments under the 
        second sentence of Section 103(e)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 
        1949 as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.
        The amendment provides, and may I read it:

            That none of the funds appropriated or made available under 
        this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out a program for 
        the 1977 crop year under which producers who plant a 
        nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres. . . .

        There is nothing in existing law that requires the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to determine which farmers plant a nonconserving crop 
    on cotton allotment land. To carry out that amendment would 
    certainly impose on the Secretary an additional duty to determine 
    whether or not that was true. Since there seems to be a mixture of 
    argument pro and con, as well as directed to the matter before us, 
    I would like to call attention to the fact that the crop in this 
    instance as discussed by the proponent is soybeans. Had we not 
    provided those soybeans, the executive branch probably would have 
    kept the embargo on exports longer than it did. . . .
        I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that there is no way in the world 
    that the Secretary of Agriculture can determine which producers 
    plant a nonconserving crop on cotton allotment acres without doing 
    something he does not do now and is not required to do now. That 
    brings it where it is clearly subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is parallel in 
    all points to a series of amendments that I have offered over the 
    years which have been challenged in each case by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi and in each case unsuccessfully. In a sense perhaps it 
    is pointless to repeat the arguments that have been made 
    effectively in past years. It is retrenchment to a withholding of 
    funds. It clearly is within the Holman Rule.
        The question was raised as to whether it imposes a new duty 
    upon the Secretary. While the key words, of course, are ``formulate 
    or carry out a program,'' the formulation or carrying out of a 
    program to which the limitation applies would not impose a new duty 
    upon the Secretary because everyone who seeks to get relief under 
    the Disaster Relief program must fill out an application form. It 
    would, of course, therefore, be a very simple matter for this form 
    to require the applicant to state whether or not a nonconserving 
    crop has been planted, if that would indeed be a point in question 
    before the Chair; but there have been at least 15 other almost 
    identical amendments that have been successfully sustained by the 
    Chair in the past, and I feel confident that the Chair will sustain 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Is it the point of the gentleman 
    from Illinois that the determinations called for in the last 4 
    lines of the amendment are already carried out under existing law? 
    Is that the contention?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: They are not.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, in order to carry out the disaster 
    relief

[[Page 6176]]

    provisions of the existing law, a farmer must make application, and 
    on this application he must state certain things and certify 
    certain things. Therefore it is my opinion that this imposes no 
    additional duty upon the administrator of this act for the 
    determination to be made that producers are not planting a 
    nonconserving crop.
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman elaborate on that specific 
    point, about whether or not in order to qualify the farmer is 
    required now under existing law to make application?
        Mr. Findley: Absolutely that is an essential step that applies 
    equally to all farmers who seek relief under the disaster relief 
    provisions of the law. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the gentleman in the 
    well has acknowledged that additional duties are required. There is 
    nothing in my knowledge that in the department they have anything 
    which shows that certain crops were planted. They do not have any 
    such record. If this amendment were adopted they would have to 
    start keeping such records.
        As I understand the gentleman he said there is nothing to keep 
    them from bringing in such a certificate. If these were brought in, 
    the department would have to go over them and determine this, that 
    and the other. There have been a few times in history when they 
    accepted such papers and there was one time when they had 
    certificates certifying more crops than were ever planted.
        As I understood the gentleman, he acknowledges that an 
    additional certificate would have to be supplied with additional 
    information, and from that the Secretary would have to make a new 
    determination, one he does not now have to make.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proponent of the amendment carries the burden of proof to 
    show that a new duty is not required. Based on that the Chair is 
    going to rule that the gentleman from Illinois has not shown that 
    the Department of Agriculture would not be required by his 
    amendment to make new determinations of eligibility under the 
    cotton allotment program, or institute new recordkeeping 
    procedures, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Price Support Loans; Requiring Minimum Interest Rates

Sec. 57.16 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for loans not repayable at a certain minimum 
    interest rate or interest on which at time of default is payable 
    without regard to value of collateral was held to require new 
    determinations not required by law as to the nature of interest on 
    loans and was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On July 29, 1982, (5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6863 (supplemental

[[Page 6177]]

appropriation bill), a point of order against the following amendment 
was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 18624, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: 
        Page 2, line 15, immediately before the period insert the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no funds appropriated or 
        otherwise made available under this chapter shall be available 
        for price support loans for agricultural commodities for which 
        the interest rate is not guaranteed payable at a rate of not 
        less than 9 percent per year and for which the aggregate 
        interest owing at the time of default is payable without regard 
        to the value of the collateral.''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    insist on my point of order.
    The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was set up as a corporation and given 
    the right and the power to sell and to buy and do all those kinds 
    of things a corporation would. It was set up as a corporation for 
    that purpose, to do all the things an average corporation can do.
        I respectfully submit that the language the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Peyser] has offered is not in that charter. Those 
    decisions are left to the officers of the corporation.
        I respectfully submit that the amendment provided that no funds 
    shall be used for which an interest rate of not less than 9 percent 
    is charged on default of its own commodities. That gives 
    affirmative direction and is, therefore, legislation since it 
    applies to the corporation.
        The amendment also requires the Department to determine--and I 
    quote to you--``the aggregate interest owing at the time of 
    default.'' That is not required in the law. That determination is 
    not required, and, therefore, that provision is legislation.
        The amendment also requires that the value of the commodity be 
    determined at the time of default. That is not in the charter and 
    required under law. Commodity value is determined at the time of 
    sale, not at the time of default. That requirement is not required 
    by law and would also be legislation.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: . . . The charter of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation does provide for an interest payment. It provides for 
    an interest payment, and all I am doing is stipulating that the 
    interest payment shall not be less than a certain percent. So I do 
    not believe I am changing anything in the charter that is not 
    already in the charter.
        I am simply stipulating a figure and a word that says, 
    ``guaranteed,'' because in the present situation, with the interest 
    rate that they call for in the Corporation, there is nothing there 
    that says they have to pay it, and they do not. Not paying it is 
    costing $1 billion. So, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I am not at all 
    violating the charter or adding to the charter. I am simply 
    establishing a rate. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] has made a point 
    of order

[[Page 6178]]

    against the amendment essentially on the grounds that it requires 
    additional determinations to be made by the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. While it is drafted as a limitation, the amendment 
    does require the Commodity Credit Corporation to undertake 
    computations and additional duties not now demonstrably required by 
    law. The amendment would require procedures to be put into effect 
    that are not now required.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Prohibiting Disposal of Surplus Agricultural Land

Sec. 57.17 An amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting the 
    use of funds therein for the General Services Administration to 
    dispose of U.S.-owned agricultural land declared surplus was ruled 
    out as legislation requiring the finding that surplus U.S.-owned 
    lands are ``agricultural'', where the law cited by the proponent of 
    the amendment defining that term was not applicable to the GSA.

    On Aug. 20, 1980,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 7593 (Department of Treasury and Postal 
Service appropriation bill), a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 22156, 22158, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Page 
        27, after line 17, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 4. None of the funds appropriated by this title may be 
        used by the General Services Administration before January 1, 
        1981, to dispose of any United States owned agricultural land 
        which is determined by the Administrator of the General 
        Services Administration to be surplus. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on 
    my point of order, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    As the distinguished gentleman from Ohio said, if we want to change 
    policy, it explicitly places new duties on the GSA to have them 
    make investigations, compile evidence, make a determination, is 
    this agricultural land or not, as discussed in the colloquy between 
    the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from Ohio.
        There is no definition of agricultural land as it goes in the 
    hierarchy of how the GSA has to do business. This would change 
    their whole way of doing business.
        For instance, under the present law there are airports, and 
    airports have a certain top priority. If, in fact, part of the land 
    around that airport was used for such things as hay cropping, they 
    would then have to make a determination at each and every airport, 
    is there hay cropping here before we can turn this over to a local 
    community for a dollar? . . .
        Mr. Pease: . . . We have had any number of amendments similar 
    to this

[[Page 6179]]

    before us which have been upheld by the Chair. This does not impose 
    new duties on the Administrator of GSA. It merely prohibits him 
    from using any of the funds in this bill to dispose of U.S. owned 
    agricultural land.
        There is a definition in the statute in the Agricultural 
    Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of agricultural land. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure 
    Act of 1979 there is a definition of agricultural land. It says 
    under section 3508, definitions:

            For the purposes of this chapter, the term ``agricultural 
        land'' means any land located in any one or more States and 
        used for agricultural, forestry or timber production purposes.

        In other words, it is not sufficient that it would be suitable 
    for, it must be used or in the process of being used for 
    agricultural purposes under the definition in the existing law.

        Mr. John L. Burton: If I may, Mr. Chairman, that is in the law. 
    The Administrator of GSA would have to look through every piece of 
    property in its jurisdiction, in its inventory and then see if it 
    fits the statute of law. It is not under their law, it is defined 
    and it is in another code section, and they would have to go 
    through every piece of surplus property to make this determination. 
    That is certainly an added burden on them.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is of the opinion . . . that there is nothing in the Federal 
    Property and Administration Services Act which would confer 
    authority on GSA to determine whether certain U.S. owned lands are 
    agricultural lands, and the Chair would sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The statute cited by the gentleman from Ohio contains a 
    definition under title 7, United States Code, with respect to 
    agricultural land owned by foreigners and reported to the Secretary 
    of Agriculture, and not to federally owned land.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where terms used in a purported limitation 
are challenged because of their ambiguity or indefiniteness, the burden 
is on the proponent of such intended limitation to show that no new 
duties would arise in the course of applying the terms thereof.