[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 67. Subject Matter: Agriculture]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6328-6379]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 67. Subject Matter: Agriculture

Change in Administrative Policy

Sec. 67.1 While a limitation may not involve a change of exist

[[Page 6329]]

    ing law, it may properly effect a change of administrative policy 
    and still be in order (7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1694). For 
    example, language in an appropriation bill providing that none of 
    the funds therein shall be used to pay any employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture who serves as a member of the Board of 
    Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be a limitation and in order.

    On May 11, 1960,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12117, a bill making appropriations for the Department 
of Agriculture. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, section 408 provides. . . .
        This reverses a decision made by the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the Congress in 1949, when the CCC Charter Act was 
    amended to strike out a similar restriction which had been enacted 
    in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and the mere fact it is put 
    in the form of a limitation on the use of funds appropriated by the 
    bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, volume 7, of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it 
        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would

[[Page 6330]]

    also have to recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers 
    of the Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protection of 
    the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government money. On 
    the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at additional 
    expense to the Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown] makes a point of order 
    against the language in section 408 of the bill on the ground that 
    it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Restriction Effective on Future Enactment of Legislation

Sec. 67.2 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, including an item for a study of the price spread 
    between farmers and consumer, an amendment providing that no part 
    of these funds may be obligated after enactment of legislation 
    establishing a National Commission on Food Marketing, was held a 
    proper limitation and in order.

    On May 19, 1964,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 11388, 11389, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Economic Research Service

                           Salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
    conducting economic research and service relating to agricultural 
    production, marketing, and distribution, as authorized by the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), and other 
    laws, including economics of marketing; analyses relating to farm 
    prices, income and population, and demand for farm products, use of 
    resources in agriculture, adjustments, costs and returns in 
    farming, and farm finance; and for analyses of supply and demand 
    for farm products in foreign countries and their effect on 
    prospects for United States exports, progress in economic 
    development and its relation to sales of farm products, assembly 
    and analysis of agricultural trade statistics and

[[Page 6331]]

    analysis of international financial and monetary programs and 
    policies as they affect the competitive position of United States 
    farm products; $9,476,000: Provided, That not less than $350,000 of 
    the funds contained in this appropriation shall be available to 
    continue to gather statistics and conduct a special study on the 
    price spread between the farmer and consumer: Provided further, 
    That this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant 
    to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
    (5 U.S.C. 574), and not to exceed $75,000 shall be available for 
    employment under section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
    55a): Provided further, That not less than $145,000 of the funds 
    contained in this appropriation shall be available for analysis of 
    statistics and related facts on foreign production and full and 
    complete information on methods used by other countries to move 
    farm commodities in world trade on a competitive basis.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 12, line 24, 
        after the word ``consumer'' change the colon to a comma and 
        insert the following: ``except that no part of the funds 
        appropriated herein may be obligated for this special study 
        subsequent to the enactment of legislation establishing a 
        National Commission on Food Marketing:''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Mississippi insist on his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Whitten: I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: . . . The point of order I make is that this is 
    not a limitation on an appropriation bill as such but is entirely 
    dependent on a contingency that may never occur. For that reason 
    the point of order should be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . The Chair . . . is of the opinion that this amendment 
    constitutes a limitation on the funds herein appropriated even 
    though that limitation may be conditioned upon a condition 
    subsequent which may never come into existence and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4004 for an 
example of a condition subsequent held in order.

Recipients With Income in Excess of Certain Limit

Sec. 67.3 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that none of 
    the funds for the soil conservation program shall be paid to any 
    person having a net income in excess of $10,000 in the previous 
    calendar year was held to be a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

[[Page 6332]]

    On May 1, 1952,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7314, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 98 Cong. Rec. 4733, 4734, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 31, line 13, after the figure $2,500 insert ``and none of the 
    funds shall be paid to any person having a net income in excess of 
    $10,000 in the previous calendar year.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. It would require a determination that one's 
    income was or was not beyond $10,000. It is my recollection that a 
    man's income and the amount of his income is not subject to finding 
    out on the part of the Government and I do not believe we could 
    determine it if it were in the legislation. . . .

        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply a limitation 
    as to the persons receiving it. Any person whose total income in 
    the previous calendar year is more than $10,000 will not receive 
    this money. It is a limitation on the payment of money. There is no 
    additional duty placed. After consulting with the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] I believe he agrees with me that this is not a 
    further duty and is within the legislation.
        The point of order should not be upheld because it is simply a 
    limitation on the payment of money. There are limitations on the 
    payment of money in other bills and this is simply limiting the 
    payment of money.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this goes 
    beyond a limitation and brings in an entirely new principle that is 
    not included in the basic act. It is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and, I might add, it is class legislation of 
    the worst kind.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has studied the amendment and that part of the bill 
    to which it refers and finds that it is a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of money in this bill to any person having an income in 
    excess of a given figure. It is definitely a limitation and under 
    the circumstances the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent is supported by the ruling 
carried in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1669 where a limitation on 
payments to persons receiving pay from another source in excess of a 
certain amount was held in order.

Rural Electrification, Limiting Funds to Areas of Low Population

Sec. 67.4 An amendment to the Rural Electrification appropriation 
    providing in part that none of the money appropriated shall be used 
    to finance the construction and operation of generating

[[Page 6333]]

    plants, electric transmission and distribution lines in any city, 
    village, or borough having a population in excess of 1,500 
    inhabitants was held to be a proper limitation on an appropriation 
    bill and in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1944,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4443, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 3105-07, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. Sec. 9 and 22, 
        supra, for discussion of the burden of proof on the issue of 
        whether a provision is authorized by existing law, and the 
        effect of a failure to cite the law relied upon as 
        authorization for provisions in appropriation bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Page 
    78, line 5, add the following: ``Provided, That the moneys 
    appropriated or otherwise authorized under this caption (`Rural 
    Electrification Administration') and expended or loaned under the 
    authority conferred by section 4 of the act approved May 20, 1936, 
    shall be used only to finance 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 now receiving central station service: Provided 
    further, That none of the moneys appropriated or otherwise 
    authorized under this caption (`Rural Electrification 
    Administration') shall be used to finance the construction and 
    operation of generating plants, electric transmission and 
    distribution lines, or systems in any area of the United States 
    included within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough 
    having a population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants.''
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that, rather 
    than being a limitation on the appropriation, this is a change in 
    the substantive law that authorized the Rural Electrification 
    Administration; and I call the attention of the Chair to a ruling 
    that was handed down on April 19, 1943, when substantially the same 
    amendment was offered, the only difference being that the word 
    ``exclusively'' has now been changed to ``only.'' I submit those 
    words have exactly the same meaning and that the ruling applied at 
    that time would be applicable at this time. . . .
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the proposed amendment 
    merely reaffirms existing law. It does not change existing law. It 
    does not change existing law or the substantive law that created 
    the Rural Electrification Administration or that governs its 
    organization and I submit that the proposals are limiting to the 
    appropriation in that the sole purpose and object of the proposals 
    are to prevent the use of this particular money outside the 
    provisions of existing law. That is, that they cannot use the 
    particular money involved in the appropriation in line 5, page 78, 
    to buy out electrical systems

[[Page 6334]]

    in towns in excess of a population of 1,500.
        Mr. Chairman, to support my contention that this is existing 
    law I want to say that the language of the first proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 4 of the R. E. A. Act approved May 20, 1936, 
    section 4 of which reads as follows:

            Sec. 4. The Administrator is authorized and empowered, from 
        the sums hereinbefore authorized, to make loans to persons, 
        corporations, States, Territories, and subdivisions and 
        agencies thereof, municipalities, peoples, utility districts 
        and cooperatives, nonprofit, or limited-dividend associations 
        organized under the laws of any State or Territory of the 
        United States, 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.

        That language is the language that is in the act of May 20, 
    1936, substantially word for word.
        The Chairman: If the Chair may interrupt the gentleman, if it 
    is existing law what is the necessity for it being in the 
    amendment?
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, the Chair anticipates the point of my 
    discussion in justifying the amendment. The reason is that so far 
    as appropriations are concerned, they have issued opinions down 
    there by a circuitous route and have managed to go ahead and buy 
    electrical systems in towns with a population in excess of 1,500. 
    They have done it in connection with other appropriations. So I 
    want to pick up this particular $20,000,000 and say that this 
    $20,000,000 shall not be expended in that illegal fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, the language of the second proviso is lifted 
    directly from section 13 of the R. E. A. Act approved May 20, 1936. 
    Section 13 reads as follows:

            Sec. 13. As used in this act the term ``rural area'' shall 
        be deemed to mean any area of the United States not included 
        within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough having a 
        population in excess of 1,500 inhabitants, and such term shall 
        be deemed to include the farm and nonfarm population thereof.

        Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I served on the committee 
    which created the R.E.A. and I was a member of the subcommittee 
    that created it. I have a thorough familiarity with the act and 
    with the amendments that have been made to the act since its 
    original creation. I know what was in the mind of the committee 
    when this organization was created. But in spite of that, they are 
    spending this money to buy electrical plants in towns with a 
    population as high as 10,000 people. I want to limit the use of 
    this appropriation so that they cannot buy out existing facilities 
    in cities having populations of ten or twenty thousand.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order is not 
    substantiated by the facts in this case. First, this is a 
    limitation and, second, the language used has been lifted verbatim 
    from the substantive act creating this organization. . . .
        Mr. Poage: I understood the gentleman to say that the amendment 
    was lifted word for word from the existing law. I have not seen the 
    amendment, Mr. Chairman, in writing, I have only heard it read, but 
    I understood from the reading of the amendment that the

[[Page 6335]]

    word ``only'' is in the amendment. The amendment states, as I 
    understand it, that this money shall be used only for these 
    purposes. When you refer to the existing law the word ``only'' is 
    not in existing law. I wonder if the gentleman will tell us whether 
    the word ``only'' has been inserted in the proposed amendment? . . 
    .
        The Chairman: Does the word ``only'' appear in the statute, in 
    response to the question asked by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Poage]?
        Mr. Boren: The word ``only'' does not appear in the 
    statute.That is in the second proviso. Neither do the words ``shall 
    not be used for other purposes'' but I make the contention that is 
    the thing that makes it limiting. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Would the gentleman's 
    amendment expand the basic law and authorize expenditures for 
    anything not authorized in the basic law?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It is solely limiting.
        Mr. Case: In the use of the word ``only,'' does that word 
    ``only'' limit the appropriation to expenditures for only a 
    particular purpose?
        Mr. Boren: It does not. It does not preclude any of the 
    purposes in the substantive law.
        Mr. Case: I wonder if the gentleman would explain this. My 
    understanding of a limitation is that it restricts the 
    appropriation to a portion of the original purposes. You cannot 
    expand an appropriation but you can restrict it. If the use of the 
    word ``only'' limits to only a certain part of the basic 
    appropriation, then it is a restriction and a limitation.
        Mr. Boren: My amendment does not in any iota expand or take in 
    any new purposes. It limits the practice that is going on.
        The reason I answered the gentleman as I did is, I am 
    unwilling, in my own judgment, to hold that the other practices 
    outside of this limitation are justified by law, but it does limit 
    them in some of the practices they are carrying on that they are 
    claiming come under the law. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: As I understand the 
    gentleman's interpretation of the word ``only,'' it is synonymous 
    to saying at that point in his amendment that ``this money shall be 
    used for no other purposes than.''

        Mr. Boren: Exactly.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Reference has been made to similar amendments that have been 
    heretofore presented. It has also been stated that the language of 
    the amendment offered is identical with an amendment presented on 
    April 19, 1943, but an examination of the amendment offered at that 
    time will show that the language was considerably and materially 
    different than the language of the proposed amendment. Aside from 
    that, the Chair is more anxious to be correct than perhaps 
    consistent.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, I do not want it to be understood that 
    I said that the wording of these amendments were identical.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not so state that the gentleman or 
    any other Member said that. That was brought to the attention of 
    the Chair a few minutes ago. As the Chair stated, he is more 
    interested in being correct than consistent.
        Inasmuch as it is conceded that the language of the first 
    proviso is the lan

[[Page 6336]]

    guage of the substantive law except for the word ``only,'' the 
    first proviso is a limitation, and in view of the fact the second 
    proviso is also a limitation, the point of order is overruled.

Rural Electrification, Construction

Sec. 67.5 To a paragraph of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
    bill making appropriations for the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, an amendment providing that ``during the period of 
    the war . . . no part of [the appropriation] shall be expended for 
    administrative services which have to do with the construction of 
    any facilities for the production . . . of electric power in any 
    area now receiving central station service'' was held germane and a 
    proper limitation and in order.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 2446, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles I.] Faddis [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 88, line 18, after the period at the end of the line, insert a 
    comma and the following: ``Provided, That during the period of the 
    war in which the United States is now engaged, no part of this 
    money shall be expended for administrative services which have to 
    do with the construction of any facilities for the production or 
    transmission of electric power in any area now receiving central 
    station service.''
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman . . . .
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the duties 
    of the Rural Electrification Administration are already prescribed 
    in existing law. This amendment attempts to change that, which 
    makes it purely legislation on an appropriation bill. Besides, as I 
    pointed out a moment ago, this expense account has nothing whatever 
    to do with the disposition of the money borrowed by the rural 
    electrification cooperatives from the R. F. C. or through the R. F. 
    C. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, may I offer 
    an observation in connection with argument? The limitation which 
    the gentleman seeks to impose upon the administrative expenses 
    cannot be germane to this paragraph of the bill, which has nothing 
    to do with administrative expenses but merely with the item of 
    loans. The item of administrative expenses has already been passed. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order [that 
    the amendment] is not germane. The Chair feels that the present 
    amendment as distinguished from the former

[[Page 6337]]

    amendment, being limited to the amount proposed to be appropriated 
    for the Rural Electrification Administration, and being a 
    limitation only upon the expenditure of those funds, is in order; 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

Sec. 67.6 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, an amendment specifying 
    that ``none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used 
    during the period ending June 30, 1971 to . . . carry out any 1971 
    crop-year program under which the total amount of payments to a 
    person . . . would [exceed] $20,000'' was held in order as a 
    limitation.

    On June 9, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17923, a Department of Agriculture general 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
    formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1301-
    1393) . . . and laws pertaining to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, $152,690,000: . . . Provided further, That no part of 
    the funds appropriated or made available under this Act shall be 
    used (1) to influence the vote in any referendum. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations'', strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program would be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of mak

[[Page 6338]]

    ing payments, to make loans under the Corporation Control Act, and 
    it was provided that nothing in that act should let the Congress 
    prevent the corporation from discharging its functions. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer or any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Countries Trading With North Vietnam

Sec. 67.7 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no funds appropriated therein ``shall be used to . . . administer 
    programs for the sale of agricultural commodities'' to any nation 
    which sells, or permits ships or aircraft under its registry to 
    transport, materials to North Vietnam, ``so long as North Vietnam 
    is governed by a Communist regime,'' was held a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 8969, 8970, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 36, line 1:

                       ``Commodity Credit Corporation

                  ``Reimbursement for net realized losses

        ``To partially reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
    net realized losses sustained but not previously reimbursed, 
    pursuant to the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 113a-
    12), $3,500,000,000.''
        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

[[Page 6339]]

        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: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amendment is in 
    order for precisely the same reason as the amendment just ruled 
    upon [that it seeks to impose an express limitation on the funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill]. It does provide a limitation on 
    funds under certain conditions, and therefore certainly is 
    completely within the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair would state that it is satisfied that established 
    precedents in accord with the pending question justifies its 
    holding the language of the proposed amendment as a limitation on 
    the appropriation, and therefore overrules the point of order.

No Funds for Purpose Prohibited by State Law

Sec. 67.8 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment providing 
    that ``no appropriation . . . in this act shall be used for the 
    purchase or application of chemical pesticides'' where such action 
    ``would be prohibited by State law'' was held to be germane to the 
    paragraph to which offered and in order as a limitation on the use 
    of the funds therein.

    On May 26, 1969,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a general appropriation bill providing funds 
for the Department of Agriculture, with a specific allocation of funds 
for animal disease and pest control. The Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and animal disease and pest control: For operations and 
    measures, not otherwise provided for, to control and eradicate 
    pests and plant and animal diseases and for carrying out as

[[Page 6340]]

    signed inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities, as 
    authorized by law, including expenses pursuant to the Act of 
    February 28, 1947, as amended (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), $89,-493,000. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger: On page 5, line 5, 
        change the semicolon to a colon and add the following: 
        ``Provided, That no appropriation contained in this act shall 
        be used for the purchase or application of chemical pesticides, 
        except for small quantities for testing purposes, within or 
        substantially affecting States in circumstances in which the 
        purchase or application of such pesticides would be prohibited 
        by State law or regulation, for any citizen or instrumentality 
        of State or local government.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: . . . The amendment I am offering is designed 
    merely to prohibit the use of chemical pesticides by the Federal 
    Government in any State where those pesticides could not be legally 
    used, under State law or regulation.
        DDT and similar chemical pesticides have been extensively 
    criticized in recent years, and the intensity of this criticism has 
    been considerably increased in the past few months; many scientists 
    have suggested that these chemicals should be banned outright.
        Responding to this attack, Arizona and Michigan have banned the 
    use of these chemicals, and several other States are considering 
    similar bans; in addition, many States have the authority to 
    prohibit by regulation or executive action the use of chemicals 
    which are found to be harmful.
        I do not feel that the Congress should be guilty of imposing 
    its own judgment in this area by permitting the use of these 
    chemicals in cases where the responsible State authorities have 
    concluded that they should be prohibited. My amendment would 
    subject the Department of Agriculture to no greater restrictions 
    than now operate upon citizens and State agencies in those States, 
    and in States where similar bans may be imposed in the future. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, upon reading the amendment, I notice 
    it goes further than I thought it did. In the first place, I do not 
    know of any provision in this bill for the purchase of chemical 
    pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment is 
    not germane and goes far beyond the legislation before us. . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Ottinger) provides that no appropriation contained in 
    this act shall be used for the purchase or application of chemical 
    pesticides.
        The amendment notes certain exceptions within or substantially 
    affecting

[[Page 6341]]

    States in circumstances in which the purchase or application of 
    such pesticides would be prohibited by State law or regulation, or 
    any citizen or instrumentality of State or local government.
        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A possible argument in support of the point 
of order might have been the imposition on federal officials of a duty 
to become conversant with a variety of state laws and regulations. 
Whether such duty would be considered as a new or additional one not 
contemplated in existing law, or whether federal officials might 
already have such a duty in law, would then be an issue. A related 
question would be whether implied duties incidental to an apparent 
limitation on the use of funds are as objectionable as language which 
expressly imposes duties of a more extensive nature. For further 
discussion of the imposition of duties on officials as grounds for 
ruling language out of order, see Sec. Sec. 52 and 53, supra.

Dissemination of Market Information

Sec. 67.9 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, including 
    funds for the Agricultural Marketing Service, an amendment 
    providing that no part of these funds may be used for dissemination 
    of market information over government-owned or leased wires serving 
    privately owned newspapers, radio, or television was held to be a 
    proper limitation although those functions were required by law to 
    be performed.

    On May 19, 1964,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 11391, 11392, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Agricultural Marketing Service

                             Marketing Services

        For expenses necessary to carry on services related to 
    agricultural marketing and distribution as authorized by the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other 
    laws, including the administration of marketing regulatory acts 
    connected therewith and for administration and coordination of 
    payments to States; and this appropriation shall be available for 
    field employment pursuant to

[[Page 6342]]

    section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (5 U.S.C. 574), and not 
    to exceed $25,000 shall be available for employment at rates not to 
    exceed $75 per diem under 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; $39,389,000.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 14, line 12, 
        after the figure ``$39,389,000'' strike the period, insert a 
        colon and the following: ``Provided, That no part of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act shall be used for any expenses 
        incident to the assembly or preparation of information for 
        transmission over Government-leased wires directly serving 
        privately-owned radio or television stations or newspapers of 
        general circulation, or for transmission over Government-leased 
        wires which are subject to direct interconnection with wires 
        leased by nongovernmental persons, firms or associations.''. . 
        .

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: The law requires, in 
    subsection k of section 1622 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
    1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-27, as follows:

            To collect, tabulate, and disseminate statistics of 
        marketing agricultural products, including, but not restricted 
        to statistics on market supplies, storage stocks, quantity, 
        quality, and condition of such products in various positions in 
        the marketing channel, utilization of such products, and 
        shipments and unloads thereof.

        That statute is absolutely mandatory and requires the 
    Department to bring together that information. The gentleman's 
    amendment does not limit funds for the discharge of the duties 
    under that section. It attempts to deprive the Secretary of 
    authority conferred by law which was determined in an earlier 
    ruling (IV, 3846) to be legislation. Further, I respectfully submit 
    it will require additional duties of folks in the Department of 
    Agriculture, which is also legislation.

        May I point out again, Mr. Chairman, in the last part of it, it 
    says the information cannot be collected for the purpose of being 
    disseminated. I respectfully submit it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill calling for new duties and responsibilities on 
    the one hand, and limiting executive authority on the other.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard briefly on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, here again I believe it is very 
    clear on the face of this amendment that it amounts to 
    retrenchment. Contrary to placing new burdens on department 
    employees it would actually relieve them of the responsibilities 
    which they assumed last April 1 in connection with the Weather 
    Bureau services and which they assumed August 1 in connection with 
    the establishment of the new Market News Service.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois offers an amendment 
    addressed to page 14, line 12, which adds a proviso to the section 
    preceding that line as follows:

[[Page 6343]]

            Provided, That no part of the funds appropriated by this 
        Act shall be used for any expenses incident to the assembly or 
        preparation of information for transmission over Government-
        leased wires directly serving privately owned radio or 
        television stations or newspapers of general circulation, or 
        for transmission over Government-leased wires which are subject 
        to direct interconnection with wires leased by nongovernmental 
        persons, firms, or associations.

        To this amendment the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    makes the point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and points out that the functions sought in this amendment as 
    a limitation of the appropriation are functions that are required 
    by other substantive law.
        The Chairman would call the attention of the Committee to the 
    fact that the existence of substantive law and the provisions 
    thereof are quite obviously not necessarily binding on the 
    Appropriations Committee. The Chair feels, therefore, that where 
    that committee seeks to appropriate funds and an amendment is 
    offered that seeks to deny the use of those funds even for 
    functions otherwise required by law, that that amendment is in the 
    nature of a limitation of appropriations and therefore overrules 
    the point of order.

Technical Assistance to Foreign Countries

Sec. 67.10 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds in the bill shall be used for technical assistance for 
    agricultural production of commodities exported by certain 
    countries was held to be a proper limitation and therefore in 
    order.

    On July 11, 1955,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7224, a mutual security appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 10240, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 10, line 15, change the period to a semicolon and add the 
    following: ``Nor shall any of these funds be used for technical or 
    other assistance for agricultural production of commodities 
    exported by such country.''
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. 
    It would impose additional duties, and it is not within the scope 
    of the bill being considered.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair does not agree with the 
    gentleman. The Chair firmly feels that this is a limitation within 
    the rules. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibiting Funds for Certain Type of Crop Insurance Program

Sec. 67.11 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Federal 
    Crop Insurance Cor

[[Page 6344]]

    poration, and limiting the amount of premium income derived from 
    the fund which may be used for operating expenses, an amendment 
    providing instead that ``no funds (herein) shall be used to 
    formulate . . . a federal crop insurance program . . . that does 
    not meet its . . . operating expenses from premium income'' was 
    held to be a proper limitation restricting the availability of 
    funds and in order as not constituting an affirmative direction.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14596. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

        Not to exceed $4,150,000 of administrative and operating 
    expenses may be paid from premium income: Provided, That in the 
    event the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund is insufficient 
    to meet indemnity payments and other charges against such Fund, not 
    to exceed $500,000 may be borrowed from the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
    prescribe, but repayment of such amount shall include interest at a 
    rate not less than the cost of money to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation for a comparable period.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 35, strike all 
        language on lines 11 and 12, and insert the following:
            ``No fund appropriated by the Act shall be used to 
        formulate or administer a Federal crop insurance program for 
        the current fiscal year that does not meet its administrative 
        and operating expenses from premium income: Provided,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        May I say that the gentleman from Illinois gave the matter 
    away, in my opinion, when he said that the purpose of his amendment 
    was to set premium rates that the Government would charge. I think 
    that shows clearly what is involved. This amendment provides that 
    no funds shall be used to administer this program under certain 
    conditions. The program now in existence is based on contracts to 
    which the Government is a party. For us in this bill to try to 
    prohibit the handling of existing contracts on the part of the 
    Government would clearly be legislation. It not only would be 
    legislation but it would interfere with meeting obligations under 
    existing contracts and commitments on the part of the Government. . 
    . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered 
    is clearly a limitation of funds, requiring that

[[Page 6345]]

    no funds be appropriated for the administration or formulation of 
    programs. Therefore, on the basis of that it seems to me that the 
    amendment is in order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observation, the 
    amendment has to do with setting premiums and is quite clearly an 
    affirmative action.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is 
    truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this 
    language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here 
    sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the 
    pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Agricultural Conservation

Sec. 67.12 To a bill appropriating funds for agricultural conservation, 
    a provision that no part of the appropriation for soil building and 
    soil and water conserving practices shall be used to make small 
    payment increases (though authorized by law) was held to be a 
    limitation restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On May 18, 1959,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7175, a Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit 
Administration appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 8328, 8329, 8331, 8332, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Agricultural Conservation Program

        For necessary expenses to carry into effect the program 
    authorized in sections 7 to 16, 16(a), and 17 of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. . . . Provided further, 
    That none of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay the 
    salaries or expenses of any regional information employees or any 
    State information employees, but this shall not preclude the 
    answering of inquiries or supplying of information at the county 
    level to individual farmers: . . . Provided further, That no part 
    of any funds available to the Department, or any bureau, office, 
    corporation, or other agency constituting a part of such 
    Department, shall be used in the current fiscal year for the 
    payment of salary or travel expenses of any person who has been 
    convicted of violating the Act entitled ``An Act to prevent 
    pernicious political activities'', approved August 2, 1939, as 
    amended, or who has been found in accordance with the provisions of 
    title 18, United States Code, section 1913, to have violated or 
    attempted to violate such section which prohibits the use of 
    Federal appropriations for the payment of personal services or 
    other expenses designed to influence in any manner a Member of 
    Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or appropriation by 
    Congress except upon request of any Member or through the proper 
    official channels. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6346]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: On page 14, 
        line 18, strike out the period in line 18, insert a colon and 
        add ``Provided further, That no part of any funds appropriated 
        herein for soil building and soil and water conserving 
        practices, under the Act of February 29, 1936, as amended, 
        shall be used to make small payment increases as provided in 
        section 8(e) of that Act.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: . . . [T]he purpose of this amendment 
    and the real effect of this amendment would be to increase the 
    payments under the agricultural conservation program for actual 
    conservation practices without any increase in the appropriation 
    for that purpose.
        I did not realize that this was the situation until I was 
    advised by the chairman of our State ASC committee in Wisconsin of 
    problems that they have encountered under section 8(e) in the 1938 
    act, which provides these so-called small payments. Under the law 
    enacted in 1938 payments made to farmers under the ACP program are 
    increased by specific percentage amounts if the payments are less 
    than $200. This is known as the small payments increase provision. 
    All of these increases are in small amounts. Under the formula 
    provided by law they run from $8 to $14 a farm, depending upon the 
    size of the payment which the farmer otherwise would earn as a 
    result of his practices.
        In the aggregate, however, they represent a sizeable portion of 
    the funds paid by the Federal Government for conservation 
    practices. In 1957, for example, the latest year for which I have 
    data, small payment increases cost the Federal Government 
    $10,743,000.
        Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the amendment being not only what 
    I consider meritorious to improve our soil conservation program and 
    make available more money for actual soil conservation practices is 
    in order as a limitation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Whitten: . . . The gentleman's amendment is tied to the 
    money which this bill would appropriate to pay for contracts 
    entered into last year. I would respectfully submit here that to 
    tie strings to the money that is authorized under the basic act for 
    this additional contribution under small payments on contracts 
    which the Government owes, certainly should not lie here. That is a 
    matter having to do with legislation. If the law needs to be 
    changed, I am certain the gentleman could ably offer his 
    recommendations to the legislative committee on agriculture where 
    this matter should go.
        Here in this bill, and we fought over this many times, Mr. 
    Chairman, in the conservation program, the ACP program, you do two 
    things. You announce next year's program and you provide funds for 
    the payment of existing contracts which have been entered into 
    under the previous year's announced program.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin has offered an amendment which has 
    been reported by the Clerk. The gentleman from Mississippi has made 
    a point of

[[Page 6347]]

    order against the amendment on the ground that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair would point out 
    that the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, is a 
    proviso to the language contained in the bill providing that no 
    part of any funds appropriated herein--and then states the 
    limitation of purpose for which the funds appropriated in this bill 
    shall not be used. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to hold that 
    this constitutes a limitation on the use of the funds and, 
    therefore, would be in order. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Soil Conservation Service

Sec. 67.13 An amendment to the Department of Agriculture chapter, 
    general appropriation bill, 1951, 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 negatively restricting the availability of funds and 
    therefore in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 5930, 5931, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 191, line 17, after the colon insert: ``Provided further, 
    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 formulating 
    and carrying out the agricultural conservation program, and the 
    funds so allocated shall not be utilized by the Soil Conservation 
    Service for any purpose other than technical and other assistance 
    in such county.'' . . .
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    same objection to this amendment as I heretofore raised, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

        Mr. Whitten: I would just like to say that we made an effort to 
    modify the amendment to strike out the language which we believe 
    caused the Chair to hold earlier that it was subject to a point of 
    order. We have tried to bring it within the limits of a limitation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Is this amendment offered in 
    an effort to eliminate duplication?
        Mr. Whitten: It is an effort to try to coordinate these 
    activities. I believe it holds high promise to give us a start on 
    the point which the gentleman raised previously.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and is of the opinion that 
    it con

[[Page 6348]]

    stitutes a limitation on an appropriation bill and is in conformity 
    with the rules of the House.
        The point of order, therefore, is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Earlier during consideration of the same 
bill, language in the bill which had given an affirmative direction 
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. 
See Sec. 39.11, supra.

Printing of Yearbook of Agriculture

Sec. 67.14 To a section of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
    making appropriations for the Government Printing Office, an 
    amendment providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used 
    to pay the salary of any person who shall perform any service or 
    authorize any expenditure in connection with the printing and 
    binding of the Yearbook of Agriculture was held as a valid 
    limitation and in order, although there were no funds in the bill 
    designated for that purpose.

    On Mar. 18, 1942,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6802. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 2681, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On 
    page 45, line 3, after ``1942'', insert ``Provided further, That no 
    part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any 
    person who shall perform any service or authorize any expenditure 
    in connection with the printing and binding of part 2 of the annual 
    report of the Secretary of Agriculture (known as the Year Book of 
    Agriculture) for 1942.''
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. There are no funds carried in 
    this bill for the purposes which are inhibited by the gentleman's 
    amendment. It would be nugatory and of no effect, and I can 
    conceive of no rule under which it might be in order.
        Mr. Dirksen: I think the amendment will speak for itself. I 
    think it is a limitation and would be germane and in order, 
    irrespective of whether any funds are carried, but the fact of the 
    matter is that the yearbook is not printed ordinarily until after 
    the first of the year. Consequently the personnel and salaries for 
    clerical work and mechanical work in the Government Printing Office 
    is done after the beginning of the fiscal year 1943. I

[[Page 6349]]

    therefore regard it as a proper limitation and in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair thinks that the 
    limitation is a valid one, and, therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William R. Thom (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Publishing Certain Types of Parity Ratios

Sec. 67.15 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, including 
    funds for a statistical reporting service, an amendment denying use 
    of these funds for publishing any ``parity'' ratio other than that 
    which is defined in section 301 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
    was held a limitation and in order as not affirmatively restricting 
    executive discretion.

    On May 19, 1964,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11202. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 11389, 11390, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Statistical Reporting Service

                           Salaries and expenses

        For necessary expenses of the Statistical Reporting Service in 
    conducting statistical reporting and service work, including crop 
    and livestock estimates, statistical coordination and improvements, 
    and marketing surveys, as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing 
    Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, $11,431,000: 
    Provided, That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be 
    available for any expense incident to publishing estimates of apple 
    production for other than the commercial crop.
        Mr. [Ancher) Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nelsen: Page 13, line 20, add the 
        following: Provided further, That no part of the funds herein 
        appropriated shall be available for any expense incident to 
        preparing or publishing either an `adjusted parity ratio' or 
        any other parity ratios except the parity ratio defined in 
        section 301 (a) (B) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 
        as amended.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi insist upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: I would point out that here again it is 
    legislating on an appropriation bill. I would point particularly to 
    the fact that the law requires the Secretary to make this 
    determination. Also there are a number of statutes which have to do 
    with that. I further point out that the precedents support my 
    contention that this is a limitation on the discretion of an 
    executive exercised under existing law. This has

[[Page 6350]]

    been held on past occasions as legislating on an appropriation 
    bill.
        I say here where the law definitely says that the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, a cabinet officer, is authorized to make this 
    determination or issues in his name, which is the same, such orders 
    or regulations, you prevent him from carrying out duties that are 
    imposed upon him by law. While it is under the guise of the use of 
    funds, the effect is to neutralize and deprive the executive 
    department of the power and authority granted under the law. . . .
        Mr. Nelsen: I would like to point out that under the Holman 
    rule you can legislate on an appropriation bill if you show 
    retrenchment.
        I would like to refer to the language which appears on page 13 
    to which my amendment has been offered. There the committee itself 
    states:

            That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be 
        available for any expense incident to possible estimates of 
        apple production for other than the commercial crop.

        In effect the committee is legislating in this field through 
    that very language. If my amendment is out of order, so is the 
    language in this section.
        I would like to point out further that I see no restriction on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture by virtue of my amendment. He can 
    publish all that he wants, as far as money that is being 
    appropriated in the various programs is concerned, but the parity 
    concept is established by law and it should be followed until the 
    Congress of the United States makes a change.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi to the language cited by the gentleman from Minnesota 
    appearing on page 13, lines 17 through 20.
        The Chair is of the opinion that while the question is always 
    present as to whether the form of an amendment is in fact a 
    limitation or whether it is legislation in the guise of a 
    limitation, the Chair is of the opinion that this amendment 
    specifically limits the expenditure of the appropriated funds for 
    any purpose other than that provided by existing law and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Salary of Employees Performing Certain Tasks

Sec. 67.16 To a bill appropriating funds for the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment providing that none of the funds therein 
    shall be used to pay the salary of any employee who performs duties 
    incidental to supporting the price of cotton at a level specified 
    was held to be a limitation and in order.

    On June 6, 1963,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 10411, 10412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 33, 
    after line 12, insert the following:

[[Page 6351]]

        ``Sec. 607. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to 
    pay the salary of any officer or employee who negotiates agreements 
    or contracts or in any other way, directly or indirectly, performs 
    duties or functions incidental to supporting the price of Upland 
    Middling Inch cotton at a level in excess of 30 cents a pound.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but I will reserve the point 
    of order at this time. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, the legislative history of the 
    agricultural act of 1958 applied to cotton as well as to feed 
    grains and very clearly indicated a gradual but steady stepdown in 
    the level of price supports for cotton.
        Secretary Freeman when taking office immediately raised the 
    level of price supports in direct contradiction of the intent of 
    the legislative act of 1958. He continued the price supports at 
    this excessive level. The purpose of my amendment is simply to 
    withhold funds for payment to any officers or employees of the 
    department who would be entering into contracts or agreements 
    providing for this unrealistic price support of more than 30 cents 
    per pound for upland Middling inch cotton.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment on the basis of 
    that argument. One of the reasons we had the supplemental 
    appropriation bill for the Commodity Credit Corporation earlier 
    this year was because the price supports for cotton had been set at 
    an unrealistic level. I would also like to mention to those who may 
    not have been in the Chamber earlier today that I had made a 
    unanimous consent request to return to the language on page 17 of 
    this bill. That request was objected to so my point of order was 
    not disposed of by the Chair. I had wished at that time to point 
    out that we are being asked today to legislate a new type cotton 
    subsidy program in the appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] press his point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the 
    basis that the prohibition that would be set up here would require 
    new duties to be performed in determining who negotiates, whether 
    their actions constitute negotiations, or whether their actions in 
    any of these particulars are in such a manner as to have their 
    salaries not paid, particularly in view of other laws which require 
    that employees of the Federal Government be paid certain specified 
    sums.
        Mr. Chairman, it does call for new duties and there is no 
    limitation in its entirety.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment which provides for the insertion of a new section, which 
    amendment provides in words that none of the funds provided in the 
    pending bill shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
    employee who does certain things.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that constitutes within the rules 
    of the House a limitation on the funds being appropriated and is a 
    proper form of limita

[[Page 6352]]

    tion. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Prohibitions on Salaries of Employees Imposing Certain Demands on 
    Farmers

Sec. 67.17 An amendment to the Agriculture Department appropriation 
    bill providing that none of the funds appropriated in such bill 
    shall be paid out for the salary, per diem allowance, or expenses 
    of any person who personally or by letter demands that a farmer 
    join the triple A program as a condition of draft deferment or for 
    the granting of a priority certificate for any rationed article or 
    commodity was held a proper limitation merely descriptive of a 
    certain type of official activity.

    On Mar. 23, 1944,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4443. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 2999, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: On 
    page 65, line 18, after the end of the bracket, strike out the 
    period and insert ``Provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated in this bill shall be paid out for the salary, per 
    diem allowance or expenses of any person who personally or by 
    letter demands that a farmer join the triple A program as a 
    condition of draft deferment or for the granting of a priority 
    certificate for any rationed article or commodity.''. . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I desire 
    first to raise the question of whether or not the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana is in order. I conceive that the 
    amendment requires the performance of additional duties on the part 
    of employees of the Department, in that, if I understand the 
    amendment correctly, it would require in the case of all of the 
    thousands of employees, administrative investigation and 
    determination to be made as to whether any of those employees had 
    written a letter or a postal card or done anything in violation of 
    the requirement of the gentleman's amendment before the salary 
    check of such employee could be issued for the month for which he 
    was being compensated. . . .

        It certainly seems to me, while it is in the form of a 
    limitation so as to be in order under the Holman rule, the effect 
    of this is to require performance of additional duties on the part 
    of the employees of the Department. For that reason it is 
    legislative in character and should not be considered in order. . . 
    .
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: I submit that the argument of the 
    gentleman does not point out anything except that this is a 
    limitation. It does not require any duty on the part of any of the 
    A.A.A. officials. It simply prohibits payment when this thing has 
    been done. It simply acts as a safeguard so that the A.A.A. 
    officials who want to enforce this act, who do not want these 
    things to be done, could withhold payment when it has been done.

[[Page 6353]]

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: I yield.
        Mr. Tarver: How are those authorized to pay the salaries of 
    these employees to ascertain whether these employees have written a 
    letter or a postal card as prohibited in the gentleman's amendment? 
    Will it not be necessary to make an investigation in each case 
    every month?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: No; of course it would not. If this 
    amendment is adopted it will stop this practice. These people will 
    not do it.
        Mr. Tarver: The gentleman is just figuring on everybody being 
    good because he tells them to be?
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: Well, that is true. If your argument is 
    sound, any limitation will require the same thing.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    proviso offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness] in the 
    opinion of the Chair is a limitation and the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibition on Salary to Employees Who Make Certain Loans

Sec. 67.18 A section of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    providing in part that no part of any appropriation in this act or 
    authorized hereby to be expended shall be used to pay compensation 
    or expenses of any officer or employee engaged in making loans 
    under the provisions of section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and 
    Construction Act of 1932 was held a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 19, 1943,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3597, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. No part of any appropriation contained in this act or 
    authorized hereby to be expended shall be used to pay the 
    compensation or expenses of any officer or employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture, or any bureau, office, agency, or 
    service of the Department, or any corporation, institution, or 
    association supervised thereby, who engages in, or directs, or 
    authorizes any other officer or employee of the Department, or any 
    such bureau, office, agency, service, corporation, institution, or 
    association to engage in, the making of loans under the provisions 
    of section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 
    1932 (12 U.S.C. 1148), as amended, or the making of loans or 
    advances in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in 
    food production financing bulletins F-1 or F-2 of the Farm Credit 
    Administration operating under the Food Production Administration, 
    Production Loan Branch.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the section just read on the ground it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

[[Page 6354]]

        This section has for its apparent purpose a prohibition of 
    further loans by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation. 
    There is no provision in this bill making an appropriation for this 
    corporation. So the limitation on its face is against officials of 
    the Department of Agriculture who might exercise supervisory 
    functions over it and its activities.
        The Regional Agricultural Credit Corporations were created in 
    1932 under the Hoover administration. There were originally 12 
    corporations, 1 in each Federal land bank district. Later 
    legislation was passed which authorized the consolidation of the 
    Regional Agricultural Credit Corporations and the return of capital 
    not needed to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to be held as 
    a revolving fund subject to the Governor of the Farm Credit 
    Administration.
        In the meantime, and on March 27, 1933, an Executive order was 
    issued which transferred the jurisdiction and control of the 
    regional agricultural credit corporations from the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation, under whose jurisdiction they had originally 
    been set up, to the Farm Credit Administration, and in that order 
    the functions which were transferred were defined as follows:

            The functions of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and 
        its board of directors relating to the appointment of officers 
        and agents to manage regional agricultural credit corporations 
        formed under section 201(e) of the Emergency Relief and 
        Construction Act of 1932; relating to the establishment of 
        rules and regulations for such management and relating to the 
        approval of loans and advances made by such corporations and of 
        the terms and conditions thereof.

        Under that Executive order and under the law it is the duty and 
    the function of the Farm Credit Administration to make rules and 
    regulations to supervise the operations of the regional 
    agricultural credit corporations and to approve loans made by them. 
    I think it is generally recognized under the rules of the House 
    that any language purporting to be a limitation which either 
    imposes new duties upon a Government agency or prohibits it from 
    performing the duties which have been assigned to it is not a 
    limitation but is legislation.
        In this particular case the Farm Credit Administration is 
    prohibited or rather its officers are prohibited under the 
    legislation from directing or authorizing the Regional Agricultural 
    Credit Corporation, to make loans and perform the other functions 
    that are imposed upon it by law. That being the case, it is 
    apparent that the officials of the Farm Credit Administration will 
    be unable to carry out their duties in supervising the operations 
    of the corporation, in approving loans, and other duties which have 
    been assigned to them.
        It can very readily be determined that this is legislation, I 
    think, by considering the interpretation which officials of the 
    Farm Credit Administration will place upon our action if the 
    section remains in the bill. Certainly they would understand it to 
    mean that Congress no longer expected them to carry on the 
    functions which under the law they are to exercise over the 
    Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation. In other words they will 
    conclude that

[[Page 6355]]

    Congress had changed its policy and has forbidden them to do what 
    heretofore under the law they have been authorized and directed to 
    do. That, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion very clearly constitutes 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I merely 
    want to submit to the Chair the very purpose of the limitation is 
    to prevent the expression of a certain task, function, or duty. It 
    may never achieve that result, as a matter of fact, in substance, 
    but that is its primary purpose. So I submit this is a very good 
    limitation and quite within the rules and does not constitute 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the view of the Chair this section is clearly a 
    limitation, and if there are no funds provided in this section the 
    limitation will be ineffective. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Incidental Additional Duties (Crop Support Payments--Limitation on Type 
    of Program)

Sec. 67.19 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    strictly limited to funds appropriated in the bill, and which is 
    negative and restrictive in character and prohibits certain uses of 
    the funds, is in order as a limitation even though its imposition 
    will change the present distribution of funds and require 
    incidental duties on the part of those administering the funds.

    On May 26, 1969,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation. An 
amendment was offered by Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 13757-59, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: On page 22, line 17, strike 
        the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That 
        no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out any price support program (other than 
        for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than $20,000 
        under all such programs are made to any producer on any crops 
        planted in the fiscal year 1970.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserved a point of order. . . .
        . . . [T]his subject has been discussed a number of times. 
    There are several new features in this amendment that have not been 
    included in previous amendments.
        Congress set up the Commodity Credit Corporation as a 
    corporation so that it could act as such. It gets its authority 
    from several sources. One is borrowing authority granted by the 
    Congress on the recommendation of the Banking and Currency 
    Committee. Another is the sale of commodities on hand. The 
    Corporation is given the right to sue and be sued. It is given

[[Page 6356]]

    the right to conduct itself in all ways as a corporation. . . .
        So I respectfully submit that in the absence of a law repealing 
    the Government Corporation Control Act and the charter of the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation, under which it was given certain 
    functions and commitments, that we would have to change that act in 
    order to limit its functions. . . .
        We say in our report that if Mr. Conte's amendment should be 
    adopted, or Mr. Findley's, and if out of the funds in this bill the 
    Corporation can pay only $20,000, we say that the Corporation would 
    still have to do what its charter authorizes and binds it to do--
    because they have these contracts--and that is to go ahead and pay 
    the remainder, over and above $20,000, out of other moneys they 
    have. . . . The Corporation's charter provides its authority. We 
    have not amended that charter. We passed legislation letting us 
    supervise its activities, but in that law permitting us to survey 
    it, it says nothing shall be done to keep that corporation from 
    carrying out its functions under its charter.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has offered an 
    amendment against which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has made a point of order on the ground that the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2 of rule XXI.
        As the gentleman from Mississippi points out and as was further 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, amendments almost 
    exactly identical to that offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts have been offered on numerous previous occasions, as 
    early as 1959 and as recently as May 1, 1968. On several of those 
    occasions points of order have been raised against this amendment 
    or its equivalent on similar grounds. On all of those previous 
    occasions the occupants of the chair have held that the amendment 
    is a valid limitation on funds appropriated by the bill, and on all 
    of those occasions the point of order has been overruled. The Chair 
    has had occasion to observe the elaborate and scholarly argument 
    presented on May 1, 1968, by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and to hear his further argument today. The gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) contends that the amendment would 
    limit and restrict the activities of a Government corporation 
    created and regulated by other law and that therefore constitutes 
    legislation. The Chair finds on the face of the amendment that what 
    it limits and restricts is the application of funds appropriated in 
    this bill to a Government corporation, and as such the Chair 
    believes that it falls well within the rulings by Chairman Kilday 
    in 1959, by Chairman Harris on January 26, 1965, and by Chairman 
    Corman on two occasions, June 6, 1967, and May 1, 1968. The Chair 
    therefore holds that the amendment is a valid limitation on the 
    funds appropriated in the bill and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 67.20 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    negative in character and which prohibits,

[[Page 6357]]

    during the fiscal year covered by the bill, certain uses of the 
    funds therein to carry out a program whose duration extends beyond 
    that fiscal year, is in order as a limitation, even though its 
    imposition would require incidental duties on the part of those 
    administering the funds.

    On June 9, 1970,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17923), a point of order was raised against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 117 Cong. Rec. 21634-36, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        23, 1971 [H.R. 9270, agriculture, environmental, and consumer 
        protection appropriations for fiscal 1972].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations,'' strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program could be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of making payments, to make 
    loans under the Corporation Control Act, and it was provided that 
    nothing in that act should let the Congress prevent the corporation 
    from discharging its functions. I might say the same thing applies 
    to the TVA.
        I respectfully, therefore, submit, Mr. Chairman, that to change 
    the Corporation Control Act and to relieve it of its 
    responsibilities which have been carefully protected by the 
    Congress on at least two occasions, even in the Anti-Deficiency 
    Act, which was some years later, would take legislation. It can 
    only be done that way, and since it would require legislation to 
    change it, anything that has that effect here of necessity must be 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order. This 
    is the similar

[[Page 6358]]

    argument that has been extended by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    on several previous occasions. One such occasion was January 26, 
    1965; another occasion was June 6, 1967, and another occasion 
    related to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) on May 26, 1969.
        On each of those occasions the limitation went to the entire 
    act, as does this amendment. It stated on each occasion that ``no 
    part of this appropriation shall be used, or none of the funds 
    appropriated by this act,''--language of that sort. The language 
    applies to administrative salaries of ASDA organizations. The 
    limitation is clearly negative on its face. It clearly shows 
    retrenchment, the reduction in spending, and, therefore is entirely 
    within the Holman rule, and I believe it is completely in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As the gentleman from Illinois declares, the point of order and 
    the arguments supporting it have been offered on previous 
    occasions, and on occasion by the gentleman from Mississippi, as 
    recently as the 26th of May last year.
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer on any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 67.21 An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is 
    negative in character and which prohibits, during the fiscal year 
    covered by the bill, certain uses of the funds therein to carry out 
    a program whose duration extends beyond that fiscal year, is in 
    order as a limitation even though its imposition might require 
    incidental duties (not contemplated in the legislation establishing 
    the administrative agency) on the part of those administering the 
    funds.

    On June 29, 1972,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15690), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 23353-55, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]:

[[Page 6359]]

        On page 19, line 21, strike the period and insert the 
    following: ``And provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated by this act shall be used during the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1973, to formulate or carry out any single 1973 
    crop-year price support program (other than for sugar and wool) 
    under which the total amount of payments to a person under any such 
    program would be in excess of $20,000.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    reserves a point of order against the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to address himself 
    to his point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        As to my point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment, to which 
    I make the point of order, goes to tying strings on the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation at the present 
    time is a creature of statutory law originally created and 
    incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. It was made 
    into a corporation so that it could perform and discharge all of 
    the duties of a corporation, that is, sue and be sued. It had an 
    independence created by statute. With time the Congress made it a 
    U.S. corporation and brought forward the provisions which are 
    incorporated in the Corporation Control Act. It appears in the 
    compilation of statutes of February 17, page 154, 69 Stat. 1007.
        In addition, the Commodity Credit Corporation by law and in the 
    law is created for the purpose of stabilizing, supporting, and 
    protecting farm income.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts has offered an amendment to 
    which the gentleman from Mississippi has made a point of order on 
    the ground that it would constitute legislation on the pending 
    appropriation bill, and thus be in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
        There have been at least six rulings on points of order offered 
    against similar or identical amendments in recent years.
        Chairman Kilday in 1959, Chairman Harris in 1965, Chairman 
    Corman in 1967 and 1968, and the present occupant of the chair in 
    1969, 1970, and 1971.
        All have ruled on similar points of order. On each occasion the 
    amendments have been held to be in order as being limitations on an 
    appropriation bill.
        In the present instance, the Chair has examined the amendment 
    and is of the opinion that it applies only to funds which would be 
    appropriated in the pending appropriation bill and that it does no 
    more than limit the use or application of the funds made available 
    in the pending bill.
        Therefore, consistent with the precedents that the Chair has 
    cited, the Chair holds that the amendment is in order as a 
    limitation on an appropriation bill and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Commodity Credit Corporation, Employee Salary

Sec. 67.22 Language in an appropriation bill providing that

[[Page 6360]]

    none of the funds therein shall be used to pay any employee of the 
    Department of Agriculture who serves as a member of the Board of 
    Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation was 
    held to be a negative limitation and in order, though indirectly 
    effecting a change in policy.

    On May 11, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12117, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10053, 10054, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 
        Sec. Sec. 52, 53, supra, for discussion of proposed language in 
        appropriation bills as imposing additional duties on officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 408. No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
    be used to pay the compensation of any employee or officer of the 
    Department, except the Secretary of Agriculture, who, in addition 
    to other regularly assigned responsibilities, serves as a member of 
    the Board of Directors or as an officer of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation after February 1, 1961.
        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Georgia: . . . This reverses a decision made by 
    the Banking and Currency Committee and the Congress in 1949, when 
    the CCC Charter Act was amended to strike out a similar restriction 
    which had been enacted in 1948. It is, therefore, legislation, and 
    the mere fact it is put in the form of a limitation on the use of 
    funds appropriated by the bill does not save it. As paragraph 1691, 
    volume 7, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives 
    puts it:

            The purpose rather than the form of a proposed limitation 
        is the proper criterion by which its admissibility should be 
        judged, and if its purpose appears to be a restriction of 
        executive discretion to a degree that may be fairly termed a 
        change of policy rather than a matter of administrative detail 
        it is not in order.

        Again in paragraph 1606 of the same volume, the following is 
    found:

            Whenever a purported limitation makes unlawful that which 
        before was lawful or makes lawful that which before was 
        unlawful it changes existing law and is not in order on an 
        appropriation bill.
            A proper limitation is negative and in the nature of a 
        veto, and when it assumes affirmative form by direction to an 
        executive in the discharge of his duties under existing law it 
        ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation.

        Section 408 in effect requires the Secretary to take 
    affirmative action. To carry out the farm programs financed by CCC, 
    the Secretary would have to appoint new Board members, recruited 
    from private life, to replace the six Department officers other 
    than himself who now serve on the Board. He would also have to 
    recruit and appoint new personnel to serve as officers of the 
    Corporation. This not only means the section constitutes 
    legislation, but also means it is not entitled to the protec

[[Page 6361]]

    tion of the Holman rule, because it would not save the Government 
    money. On the contrary, it would require hiring new employees at 
    additional expense to the Government. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    section clearly provides a limitation on the use of funds that are 
    appropriated in this bill. It does not change the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation charter. It does not change any basic law. It just 
    simply limits what the money in this bill can be used for. It has 
    been my experience and observation during the years here that the 
    Chair has many times said that it is a negative limitation on the 
    use of money and that it is clearly in order, and on that I rest 
    the committee's position.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the precedents in 
    this connection, including the precedents to which the gentleman 
    from Georgia has referred and from which he has read. The Chair 
    would also refer to paragraph 1694 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    7, the language being:

            While a limitation may not involve change of existing law 
        or affirmatively restrict executive direction, it may properly 
        effect a change of administrative policy and still be in order.

        The Chair has examined additional precedents bearing on this 
    question. The Chair is constrained to hold that section 408 is a 
    restriction on a manner in which the funds can be used, and 
    constitutes a negative limitation, and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A discussion comparing the precedents cited 
above, 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1691 and 1694 can be found in 
Sec. 51, supra. An issue suggested by the debate on May 11, 1960, is 
whether language in an appropriation bill should be ruled out if it may 
lead prospectively or indirectly to the imposition of duties on 
officials, by the operation of other laws. The ruling suggests that 
only where the duties are imposed directly by the language of the 
provision in question is it subject to a point of order.

``Stream Channelization

Sec. 67.23 An amendment to an appropriation bill prohibiting the use of 
    funds therein for stream channelization projects under the 
    Secretary of Agriculture unless construction had begun by a date 
    certain was held not to impose additional affirmative duties on the 
    Secretary and in order as a limitation on the use of funds in the 
    bill.

    On June 23, 1971,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of

[[Page 6362]]

order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 21648, 21649, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: On 
    page 37, immediately after line 25, insert the following:

                          ``Stream Channelization

        ``No part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used 
    for engineering or construction of any stream channelization 
    measure under any program administered by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture unless such channelization is in a project a part of 
    which was in the project construction stage before July 1, 1971.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Chair, in the other ruling 
    pointed up the section which was dropped. That being sufficient, I 
    take it, the Chair did not feel any need to study the other parts. 
    Since it was going out on one ground there was no need to study the 
    others.
        The part that is left says that ``under any program 
    administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.''
        The program, apparently, that this is directed to is the Soil 
    Conservation projects. I would respectfully call the attention of 
    the Chair to the fact that these are two things which must be done 
    on these projects. The Department of Agriculture does not have any 
    right of eminent domain in order to get ground on which to build 
    these projects. Under the law there is required a local sponsor, 
    who in most cases is a drainage or similar district, which in turn 
    issues bonds or borrows money, with which they buy rights-of-way. 
    Those rights-of-way having been bought, this comes under the 
    administration of the Soil Conservation Service.
        In this instance, with all these projects throughout the United 
    States, in most cases they have to be approved by the local courts, 
    which have to determine whether all of the requirements of the law 
    have been carried out.
        This would be imposing upon the Secretary of Agriculture the 
    duty to go into each of those instances and to see whether that 
    project was, as we quote here, ``A part of which was in project 
    construction stage before July 1, 1971.'' Those things do not come 
    to the Secretary of Agriculture. They are handled, as I pointed 
    out, in the initial stage at the local level with a local 
    sponsorship and approved by local courts.
        I say here this would be imposing additional duties on the 
    Secretary of Agriculture not imposed on him by existing law. This 
    again, although not pointed up by the Chair in the earlier ruling, 
    would make it subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    that goes to the appropriation item is one carried in Public Law 
    566. In that Public Law there are certain requirements which are 
    made upon all of the political subdivisions which are participants 
    under that existing law.
        The Chair has just ruled that that requirement, the Cooper 
    Decision, such as the Chair just ruled upon, would put an 
    additional burden or an addi

[[Page 6363]]

    tional requirement on the administrative offices and would be an 
    infringement upon the legislative function, which should not be 
    carried in an appropriation act.
        Here is the situation. The situation is such that this 
    amendment goes into an infinite requirement.
        Suppose the amendment had said, ``The Soil Conservation Service 
    should not use a soil depleting plant and it should require not 
    fescue but say four-leaf clover.'' That would be just as sensible 
    as the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        I do not know how the administrative officer assigned the 
    duties under Public Law 566 is going to be responsible, when the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to tell 
    him how to function, how much water to use, how much plant leaf, or 
    how much forestation, and all the varieties of programs that are 
    employed in the total scheme and development of the overall 
    program. It does not make sense to me that we are going to have 
    amendments offered here that are going to tell administrative 
    agencies how much they are going to employ in a certain area, for 
    geographical distribution, and how they are going to develop a 
    sound and sensible program.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, all of us aspire to develop all of the 
    advantages of our resources. We are totally dedicated to the 
    proposition. There is not a single one of us here who is not as 
    anxious as he can be to accomplish this, or who wants to deplete, 
    dissipate or misuse the water resources of our country. I think we 
    are all in unity on that, but I would hate to see us come up here 
    and fragment the total programs that have been so far established 
    by the various committees of the Congress and thereby lose our grip 
    on the total water resources of this country. I cannot think of 
    anything worse, or any situation that would create more disunity 
    and create a greater loss of hope that we can work together in the 
    development of these programs in the future.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to the amendment will be sustained. . . 
    .
        Mr. Reuss: . . . This amendment is entirely germane. It is 
    within all of the precedents as a limitation on an appropriation. 
    It requires no duties on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture 
    other than for him to show up at the office in the morning and find 
    out what projects have been started. If they have been started, my 
    amendment would not touch them. Accordingly I hope that the point 
    of order will be ruled against.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the burden, if any, which is imposed on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture or any administrator in the present 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is clearly 
    different from that on the basis of which the Chair ruled that the 
    amendment previously offered would be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and would, therefore, be out of order. The 
    Chair believes that this present amendment before the House follows 
    the pattern of limitation on an appropriation bill, and that it 
    does not constitute new legislation. Therefore the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

[[Page 6364]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: On the same day, a provision requiring 
state approval of certain projects was ruled out as legislation. See 
Sec. 53.6, supra; see also the note following Sec. 53.6.

Removal of Dollar Limit on Building Cost; No Authorization Ceiling

Sec. 67.24 A provision in the general appropriation bill, 1951, 
    providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used (by the 
    Secretary of Agriculture under the Research and Marketing Act) for 
    beginning construction of any building costing in excess of 
    $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may be constructed at 
    Purdue University at a cost of not to exceed $29,000, was held to 
    be a limitation and in order inasmuch as the authorization for such 
    projects contained no ceiling on such expenditures.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786. A provision therein provided that no part of the 
appropriation shall be used [by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 
Research and Marketing Act] for beginning construction of any building 
costing in excess of $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may 
be constructed at Purdue University at a cost of not to exceed $29,000. 
A point of order was made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 5911, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language appearing in lines 15 to 17 on 
    page 157, reading ``Except that a poultry breeding house may be 
    constructed at Purdue University,'' on the ground that it is 
    legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
    Chairman, I wish to call attention to the fact that under the 
    Research and Marketing Act, section 7-A, 7 United States Code 
    427(h), the Department of Agriculture is authorized to construct 
    agricultural buildings without limitation on the amounts. This 
    committee has put restrictions heretofore on these amounts, fixing 
    the individual amount at $15,000 per unit. We carry that provision 
    with the exception that in this instance we let them go above it.
        It traces back to the legislative authorization in the Research 
    and Marketing Act under which they have authority to build such 
    houses without any limitation.
        In effect this is a limitation.
        The authorization [now 7 U.S.C. 361(d)] reads as follows:

[[Page 6365]]

            The money appropriated in pursuance of this title shall 
        also be available for the purchase or rental of land and the 
        construction and acquisition of buildings necessary for 
        conducting research provided for in this title.

        In effect this is a limitation fixing the amount they may spend 
    for this purpose.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the provisions of 
    existing law cited by the gentleman from Mississippi and invites 
    attention to the fact that the first part of this paragraph appears 
    clearly to be a limitation and the latter part of the paragraph 
    appears to be an exception to the limitation for a purpose 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Price Support Programs; Limit on Single Payments

Sec. 67.25 To a paragraph of a bill making appropriations for parity 
    payments, an amendment limiting such payments to any person or 
    corporation to $1,000 was held a proper limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds and in order.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Jed) Johnson of Oklahoma: On page 75, 
    line 13, after ``Government'' and before the period, insert the 
    following: ``: Provided further, That no payment or payments 
    hereunder to any one person or corporation shall be in excess of 
    the total sum of $1,000.''

    In response to a point of order made by Mr. William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, the Chairman (5) made the following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From Cannon's Procedure, on page 61, the Chair reads the 
    following:

            The House in Committee of the Whole has the right to refuse 
        to appropriate for any object either in whole or in part, even 
        though that object may be authorized by law. That principle of 
        limitation has been sustained so repeatedly that it may be 
        regarded as part of the parliamentary law of the Committee of 
        the Whole.

        That was a ruling made by Mr. Chairman Nelson Dingley, of 
    Maine, January 17, 1896. The present amendment against which the 
    point of order has been made undertakes to limit payments which 
    have heretofore been provided for by law. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment is a limitation; and, therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Limits on Payments or Loans Under Farm Program

Sec. 67.26 To an appropriation bill providing funds for pro

[[Page 6366]]

    grams operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and permitting 
    a transfer of certain corporation funds to those programs, an 
    amendment providing that no funds in the act be used for price 
    support programs under which payments to producers exceed specified 
    amounts was held in order as a limitation restricting the 
    availability of funds.

    On May 26, 1969,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
During consideration, the Chair overruled a point of order against a 
substitute amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 13762, 13763, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of 
    Minnesota]: On page 22, line 17, strike the period and insert the 
    following: ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out 
    any price support program on cotton, wheat, or feed grains planted 
    during the fiscal year 1970 under which payments to any single 
    producer exceed an amount determined as follows: [A table of 
    payments was inserted here.]
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: It is legislation on an appropriation bill, and 
    requires additional duties.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Quie: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe this amendment is in order, because the opening 
    language is identical with that of the Conte amendment. The only 
    difference is that where his cutoff is at $20,000 mine provides for 
    a graduation or scaling down of the cutoff above that. It applies 
    only to the funds in this act and is a limitation on the funds in 
    this act. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        For reasons declared in a previous ruling the Chair is going to 
    hold that the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie), is a limitation on the appropriation and is 
    therefore in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.27 To an appropriation bill providing funds for programs 
    operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and permitting a 
    transfer of certain corporation funds to those programs, an 
    amendment specifying that no funds appropriated by the act be used 
    to formulate or carry out price support programs which include 
    payments in excess of $20,000 to any producer, was held in order as 
    a limitation restricting the availability of funds.

[[Page 6367]]

    On May 26, 1969,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11612, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 13757-59, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 
    On page 22, line 17, strike the period and insert the following: 
    ``: Provided further, That no part of the funds appropriated by 
    this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out any price support 
    program (other than for sugar) under which payments aggregating 
    more than $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer 
    on any crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.''

    In response to a point of order against the amendment, the 
Chairman, James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, ruled as follows:

        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has offered an 
    amendment against which the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has made a point of order on the ground that the amendment 
    constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of 
    clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        As the gentleman from Mississippi points out and as was further 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, amendments almost 
    exactly identical to that offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts have been offered on numerous previous occasions, as 
    early as 1959 and as recently as May 1, 1968. On several of those 
    occasions points of order have been raised against this amendment 
    or its equivalent on similar grounds. On all those previous 
    occasions the occupants of the chair have held that the amendment 
    is a valid limitation on funds appropriated by the bill, and on all 
    of those occasions the point of order has been overruled. The Chair 
    has had occasion to observe the elaborate and scholarly argument 
    presented on May 1, 1968, by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten), and to hear his further argument today. The gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) contends that the amendment would 
    limit and restrict the activities of a Government corporation 
    created and regulated by other law and that therefore constitutes 
    legislation. The Chair finds on the face of the amendment that what 
    it limits and restricts is the application of funds appropriated in 
    this bill to a Government corporation, and as such the Chair 
    believes that it falls well within the rulings by Chairman Kilday 
    in 1959, by Chairman Harris on January 26, 1965, and by Chairman 
    Corman on two occasions, June 5, 1967, and May 1, 1968. The Chair 
    therefore holds that the amendment is a valid limitation on the 
    funds appropriated in the bill and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 67.28 The Committee of the Whole having stricken from an 
    appropriation bill one limitation on compensation under an acreage 
    reserve program, an amendment proposing another limitation of 
    compensation to any one producer to $5,000 under

[[Page 6368]]

    such program was held to be in order and a proper limitation.

    On May 15, 1957,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7441, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 7023, 7033, 7034, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Acreage Reserve, Soil Bank

        For necessary expenses to carry out an acreage reserve program 
    in accordance with the provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil 
    Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1821-1824 and 1802-1814), $60,000,000: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation shall be used to formulate and 
    administer an acreage reserve program which would result in total 
    compensation being paid to producers in excess of $500,000,000 with 
    respect to the 1958 crops.
        Mr. [Burr P.] Harrison of Virginia: I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harrison of Virginia: On page 21, 
        strike out all following the word ``program'' in line 2 and 
        strike out all of line 3. . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 21, line 4, change 
        the period to a comma and add the following: ``or in total 
        compensation being paid to any one producer in excess of $5,000 
        with respect to the 1958 crops.''. . .

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) he gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The gentleman's amendment, as just 
    reported, affects a section of the bill already stricken by the 
    amendment just agreed to, and furthermore I see no reason for any 
    further discussion upon this particular amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: Upon what grounds does the gentleman make his 
    point of order?
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: That the language to which this amendment 
    applies has already been stricken out and, further, that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, 
    which was adopted, struck out only a portion of the proviso to this 
    section. But, there is language remaining to which the gentleman 
    has offered an amendment, and stated it would be at the end of that 
    paragraph. It is also a limitation on the use of the appropriation. 
    The point of order made by the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    overruled.

Sec. 67.29 To a bill appropriating funds for the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, a provision that no funds appropriated in this section 
    shall be used to process a loan

[[Page 6369]]

    which is in excess of $50,000 was held to be a limitation 
    restricting the availability of funds and in order.

    On May 18, 1959,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7175, a Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit 
Administration appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 8337, 8338, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Title II--Corporations

        The following corporations and agencies are hereby authorized 
    to make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and borrowing 
    authority available to each such corporation or agency and in 
    accord with law, and to make such contracts and commitments without 
    regard to fiscal year limitation as provided by section 104 of the 
    Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, as may be necessary 
    in carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for the fiscal 
    year 1960 for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
    provided: . . .

                   Limitation on Administrative Expenses

        Nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to prevent the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation from carrying out any activity or any 
    program authorized by law: Provided, That not to exceed $39,600,000 
    shall be available for administrative expenses of the Corporation: 
    Provided further, That $1,000,000 of this authorization shall be 
    available only to expand and strengthen the sales program of the 
    Corporation pursuant to authority contained in the Corporation's 
    charter: Provided further, That not less than 7 per centum of this 
    authorization shall be placed in reserve to be apportioned pursuant 
    to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, for use only 
    in such amounts and at such time as may become necessary to carry 
    out program operations: Provided further, That all necessary 
    expenses (including legal and special services performed on a 
    contract or fee basis, but not including other personal services) 
    in connection with the acquisition, operation, maintenance, 
    improvement, or disposition of any real or personal property 
    belonging to the Corporation or in which it has an interest, 
    including expenses of collections of pledged collateral, shall be 
    considered as nonadministrative expenses for the purposes hereof. . 
    . .
        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk on page 27.
        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Avery: Page 27, line 18 strike out 
        the period, add a colon, and insert ``Provided further, That no 
        funds appropriated in this section shall be used to process a 
        Commodity Credit loan which is in excess of $50,000.' . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order I make is this: The Commodity Credit Corporation is 
    chartered and its charter gives it certain authority. The language 
    which the gentleman offers is legislation.
        We are here dealing with the administration of the Commodity 
    Credit Cor

[[Page 6370]]

    poration in this bill. The gentleman's limitation would apply to 
    what the Corporation would do and would have the effect of amending 
    the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair would point out that the amendment by its language is 
    a restriction upon the purpose for which the funds appropriated in 
    this bill may be used.
        The Chair would point out further that even though there should 
    be an existing liability on the Government or should be through 
    other legislation granting powers to an organization of the 
    Government, still a provision in an appropriation bill limiting the 
    purpose for which the funds appropriated in that bill may be used 
    is a limitation and not legislation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.30 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, an 
    amendment specifying that no part of the funds therein shall be 
    used, in any fiscal year, for farm program payments aggregating 
    more than $50,000 to any person or corporation was held to be a 
    proper limitation since confined to the funds in the bill.

    On May 26, 1965,(13) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8370, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 11660-62, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk: Page 36, line 20:

            Sec. 506. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
        the Department for research and service work authorized by the 
        Acts of August 14, 1946, July 28, 1954, and September 6, 1958 
        (7 U.S.C. 472, 1621-1629; 42 U.S.C. 1891-1893), shall be 
        available for contracting in accordance with said Acts.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: Page 37, after line 2, 
        insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 507. No part of any funds appropriated by this Act 
        may, in any fiscal year, be used, directly or indirectly, to 
        make payments to any person, partnership, or corporation in an 
        aggregate amount in excess of $50,000 in connection with any 
        price-support program or combination of programs for price 
        support or stabilization, irrespective of whether such payments 
        are on account of loans, purchases, or subsidies or are 
        otherwise authorized.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, you 
    will be interested to know that the U.S. Department of 
    Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation publishes a list of 
    recipients of price support loans which runs to 13 closely typed 
    pages. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi press his point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6371]]

        Mr. Whitten: This amendment would require the keeping of books, 
    it would require substantive additional duties on many people 
    because many producers produce many different crops. This would be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I would point out 
    this is very simple. I am sure the gentleman from Mississippi knows 
    no duties are imposed upon any persons by this. . . .
        This is really a limitation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] offered 
    an amendment. . . .
        To which amendment the gentleman from Mississippi makes the 
    point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that since the amendment is 
    directed to funds appropriated by the pending act, the phrase ``in 
    any fiscal year'' is not applicable, nor in fact is it necessary. 
    But the Chair is further of the opinion that this is an express 
    limitation on the funds appropriated by the pending bill, and holds 
    that the amendment is in order, and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.31 To a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, including an appropriation for reimbursement to the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment specifying that no funds 
    appropriated by the Act be used for agricultural price support 
    programs under which payments in excess of $25,000 will be made to 
    any single recipient was held to be a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds and in order.

    On June 6, 1967,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10509. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 14853, 14854, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    34, line 18, after the word ``hereof'' strike the period and insert 
    the following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or carry out 
    price support or commodity programs during the period ended June 
    30, 1968, under which the total amount of payments in excess of 
    $25,000 would be made to any single recipient as (1) incentive 
    payments, (2) diversion payments, (3) price support payments. . . 
    .''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to make a point of order against the amendment. While the 
    gentleman's amendment applies to a number of things that might be 
    tied to appropriations in the bill, the amendment will stand or 
    fall on all of its provisions. As I pointed out earlier, the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was set up as a corporation with 
    certain rights and powers. Later it was brought under surveil

[[Page 6372]]

    lance, and under both acts which brought it under congressional 
    surveillance it was provided that--

            Nothing in this act of surveillance shall interfere with 
        the operations of the Corporation in maintaining price 
        supports.

        If you read the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois, you will see that item 3 states, ``Price 
    support payments may not exceed $25,000.'' So that language clearly 
    would interfere with price support payments and would repeal the 
    two acts that I mentioned. It would, to that extent, change the 
    authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment comes 
    clearly within the Holman rule. It is negative. It represents a 
    retrenchment. It designates things for which funds may not be 
    spent.
        I would call the attention of the Chair to the Congressional 
    Record, volume 111, part 9, page 11656.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] 
    offered an amendment which had almost the same, almost the precise 
    language--the substantive phrases at least. The Chair overruled the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten]. So I do believe this is very much in order and in keeping 
    with previous amendments of the same sort.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On January 26, 1965, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Harris, 
    was in the chair when a similar amendment was offered to a bill 
    appropriating funds to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
    The Chair ruled that the proposed amendment was a limitation that 
    applied only to the appropriations carried in the bill before the 
    Committee at that time. The Chair therefore overruled the point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chair holds that the amendment is a limitation and, 
    therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 67.32 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service including 
    programs operated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment 
    specifying that ``one of the funds appropriated by this act shall 
    be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 to formulate or 
    carry out any 1971 crop-year program under which the total amount 
    of payments to a person under such program would be in excess of 
    $20,000'' was held in order as a limitation.

    On June 9, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17923, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 18997, 18998, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 6373]]

            Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

       expenses, agricultural stabilization and conservation service

        For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
    Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
    formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1301-
    1393); Sugar Act of 1948, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1101-1161); sections 
    7 to 15, 16(a), 16(d), 16(e), 16(f), 16(i), and 17 of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
    590g-590q); subtitles B and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1831-
    1837, 1802-1814, and 1816); and laws pertaining to the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation, $152,690,000: Provided, That in addition, not 
    to exceed $68,779,000 may be transferred to and merged with this 
    appropriation from the Commodity Credit Corporation fund (including 
    not to exceed $30,228,000 under the limitation on Commodity Credit 
    Corporation administrative expenses): Provided further, That other 
    funds made available to the Agricultural Stabilization and 
    Conservation Service for authorized activities may be advanced to 
    and merged with this appropriation: Provided further, That no part 
    of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act shall be 
    used (1) to influence the vote in any referendum; (2) to influence 
    agricultural legislation, except as permitted in 18 U.S.C. 1913; or 
    (3) for salaries or other expenses of members of county and 
    community committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, for 
    engaging in any activities other than advisory and supervisory 
    duties and delegated program functions prescribed in administrative 
    regulations.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 23, line 8, after 
        the word ``regulations'', strike the period, add a colon and 
        the following:
            ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by 
        this act shall be used during the period ending June 30, 1971 
        to formulate or carry out any 1971 crop-year program under 
        which the total amount of payments to a person under such 
        program would be in excess of $20,000.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten (of Mississippi): Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the Chair will note, the amendment is offered to a 
    particular section of the bill, but the language provides that 
    ``none of the funds appropriated by this act,'' so it is a 
    limitation, which means it applies to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation was created under the 
    laws of Delaware in 1933. It was given the power, it was given the 
    right, and it was given the obligation of making payments, to make 
    loans under the Corporation Control Act, and it was provided that 
    nothing in that act should let the Congress prevent the corporation 
    from discharging its func

[[Page 6374]]

    tions. I might say the same thing applies to the TVA.
        I respectfully, therefore, submit, Mr. Chairman, that to change 
    the Corporation Control Act and to relieve it of its 
    responsibilities which have been carefully protected by the 
    Congress on at least two occasions, even in the Anti-Deficiency 
    Act, which was some years later, would take legislation. It can 
    only be done that way, and since it would require legislation to 
    change it, anything that has that effect here of necessity must be 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As the gentleman from Illinois declares, the point of order and 
    the arguments supporting it have been offered on previous 
    occasions, and on occasion by the gentleman from Mississippi, as 
    recently as the 26th of May last year.
        This point was made last year with respect to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), which, 
    while not identical, is, in the opinion of the Chair, sufficiently 
    similar to the presently offered amendment, as to govern.
        On that occasion the gentleman from Massachusetts offered an 
    amendment which would have provided:

            That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or carry out any price support program (other 
        than for sugar) under which payments aggregating more than 
        $20,000 under all such programs are made to any producer or any 
        crops planted in the fiscal year 1970.

        On the basis of previous rulings of the Chair, it is the 
    opinion of the present occupant of the chair, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and is therefore in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 67.33 To an Agriculture Department appropriation bill, an 
    amendment specifying that none of the funds therein shall be used 
    for commodity programs under which payments to any single farmer 
    would exceed a certain dollar amount was held a proper limitation 
    and in order.

    On May 1, 1968,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 16913), a point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 11281-88, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On 
        page 33, line 5, after the word ``hereof'', strike the period 
        and insert the following: ``Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to formulate or 
        carry out price support or commodity programs during the period 
        ending June 30, 1969, under which the total amount of payments 
        in excess of $10,000 would be made to any single recipient as 
        (1) incentive payments, (2) diversion payments, (3) price 
        support payments, (4) wheat marketing certificate payments, (5) 
        cotton equali

[[Page 6375]]

        zation payments, and (6) crop-land adjustment payments.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, may I point out several things? The Commodity 
    Credit Corporation was created as a corporation under the laws of 
    Delaware some years ago. It was incorporated so as to have, in 
    connection with the farm program, all the rights and 
    responsibilities that a corporation under general law has.
        This is the right to buy and sell and the right to discharge 
    its responsibilities assigned to it by the Congress such as 
    supporting the farm program which the Congress passed and the 
    President signed. The very purpose of creating the Corporation was 
    to be freed of restrictions such as we offered here, which any 
    Congress might impose, from year to year, on appropriated bills, if 
    the erroneous rulings are continued. . . .
        The purpose of the Corporation's Charter Act is to avoid such 
    action as is offered here which would make the Corporation a part 
    of the Department of Agriculture. Through the years every time the 
    Congress has tried to restrict this Corporation, the Congress has 
    carefully provided that such act could not be used to keep the 
    Corporation from discharging its duties and its functions under its 
    charter.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you to reverse the prior 
    decisions of other Chairmen who have presided, and have had this 
    question before them. Also may I say the present amendment is very 
    different from the one that we had before. This one reads:

            None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to 
        formulate or carry out price support or commodity programs 
        during the period ending June 30, 1969, under which the total 
        amount of payments in excess of $10,000 would be made to any 
        single recipient as (1) incentive payments----

        The funds in this bill are to restore past losses. So I 
    respectfully submit that the Corporation, being a corporation, has 
    a right to hire its own employees. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have with me here a brief, and I have sent a 
    copy of this brief to the Parliamentarian earlier so I am sure he 
    has had time to study it. My brief, which I shall present to you, 
    points out that, if you will go through all of the legislation 
    since this Corporation was set up as a corporation, you will see 
    that Congress has carefully said that no action under appropriation 
    bills should be taken to prevent the Corporation from performing 
    its functions.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that you cannot limit the basic powers 
    of the Corporation by the imposition of a restriction thereon in an 
    appropriation bill because Congress has carefully seen that such a 
    procedure could not prevent the Corporation from carrying out its 
    responsibilities. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has read the amendment 
    and is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Consistent with the decision of Chairman Harris in 1965 and 
    Chairman Kilday in 1959, and consistent with the Chair's own ruling 
    on June 6, 1967, the Chair finds that the amendment is a limitation 
    on appropriations.

[[Page 6376]]

Restriction on Contract Authority Contained in Bill

Sec. 67.34 To a section of an Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
    containing legislation authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    make such additional commitments as may be necessary in order to 
    provide full parity payments, an amendment providing that the 
    payments shall not exceed an amount necessary to equal parity 
    ``when added to the market price and the payment made for 
    conservation . . . of agricultural land resources,'' was held a 
    proper limitation restricting the availability of funds which did 
    not add further legislation to that already contained in the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation 
bill, the Clerk read the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2124, 2125, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              parity payments

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make parity payments 
    to producers of wheat, cotton, corn (in the commercial corn-
    producing area), rice, and tobacco pursuant to the provisions of 
    section 303 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, there are 
    hereby reappropriated the unobligated balances of the 
    appropriations made under this head by the Department of 
    Agriculture Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1941 and 1942, 
    to remain available until June 30, 1945, and the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to make such additional commitments or 
    incur such additional obligations as may be necessary in order to 
    provide for full parity payments: . . . Provided further, That such 
    payments with respect to any such commodity shall be made with 
    respect to a farm in full amount only in the event that the acreage 
    planted to the commodity for harvest on the farm in 1943 is not in 
    excess of the farm acreage allotment established for the commodity 
    under the agricultural conservation program, and, if such allotment 
    has been exceeded, the parity payment with respect to the commodity 
    shall be reduced by not more than 10 percent for each 1 percent, or 
    fraction thereof, by which the acreage planted to the commodity is 
    in excess of such allotment. The Secretary may also provide by 
    regulations for similar deductions for planting in excess of the 
    acreage allotment for the commodity on other farms or for planting 
    in excess of the acreage allotment or limit for any other commodity 
    for which allotments or limits are established under the 
    agricultural conservation program on the same or any other farm.

    An amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John) Taber (of New York): On page 
    77, line 5, after the word ``farm,'' strike out the period, insert 
    a colon and a proviso as

[[Page 6377]]

    follows: ``Provided further, That parity payments, under the 
    authority of this paragraph, shall not exceed such amount as is 
    necessary to equal parity when added to the market price and the 
    payment made or to be made for conservation and use of agricultural 
    land resources under sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act approved February 29, 1936, 
    as amended; and the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
    of 1938 as amended; Provided further, That the total expenditures 
    made and the contracts entered into in pursuance of this paragraph 
    shall not exceed in all $212,000,000.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I submit a 
    point of order against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber]. . . .
        Mr. Taber: . . . The bill, on page 75, provides that the 
    Secretary is authorized and directed to make such additional 
    commitments or incur such additional obligations as may be 
    necessary in order to provide for full parity payments.
        That is legislation. It is brought in order under the rule. The 
    language that I have submitted is clearly germane to that provision 
    because it provides a method. It is purely a limitation to the 
    payments that shall be made for parity under the authority of this 
    paragraph. For this reason it is clearly germane and it is clearly 
    in order.
        It would be in order if there was no legislation in the 
    paragraph because it is a pure limitation.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, may I make the 
    observation that if the proposal is clearly a limitation, even 
    though it embraces some legislation, it is in order under the 
    Holman rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] if there are any funds other than those 
    appropriated in this bill to be used for parity payments?
        Mr. Taber: None.
        The Chairman: Just the funds in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The amendment the gentleman is offering is to 
    limit the funds offered in this bill?
        Mr. Taber: That is my intention. I think perhaps I ought to 
    insert after the word ``payments'' in the third line the words 
    ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' With that in, it would 
    clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] ask 
    to modify his amendment?
        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent to modify his amendment by inserting after the word 
    ``payments'' ``under the authority of this paragraph.'' Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber]?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has 
    offered an amendment, on page 77, line 5, under

[[Page 6378]]

    taking to provide further limitations on the payment and the 
    administration of parity payments, to which the gentleman from 
    Georgia has made a point of order.
        It seems to the Chair that the language of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York constitutes a limitation 
    upon the funds appropriated by this paragraph or proposed to be 
    appropriated by this paragraph and does not constitute legislation.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Acreage Reserve, Payment Per Acre

Sec. 67.35 An amendment to an appropriation bill providing that no 
    payment under the acreage reserve shall be made above $16 per acre 
    out of the appropriation was held to be a limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds in the bill and in order.

    On Feb. 25 and 26, 1958,(3) The Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 10881, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 2895, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Acreage Reserve Program

        For an additional amount for ``Acreage reserve program,'' 
    fiscal year 1958, $250,000, which shall be available to formulate 
    and administer an acreage reserve program in accord with the 
    provisions of subtitles A and C of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 
    1821-1824 and 1802-1814), with respect to the 1958 crops, in an 
    amount not to exceed $175 million in addition to the amount 
    specified for such purposes in Public Law 85-118.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: On page 4, line 9, strike 
        out the period and insert: ``Provided, That no payment under 
        acreage reserve shall be made above $16 per acre out of this 
        appropriation.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . Under the basic act the Secretary has authority to set 
    the rate of payment, and I respectfully submit that were this 
    amendment to change that legislative authority which is vested in 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: It is a pure limitation on the funds involved in 
    that paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule on the point of order that 
    has been made. The point of order is not sustained.

Limit on Authorized Purchase of Motor Vehicles

Sec. 67.36 Language in a general appropriation bill providing

[[Page 6379]]

    that not to exceed a certain amount of money be available for the 
    purchase of motor vehicles was held to be a proper limitation on an 
    appropriation bill for a purpose otherwise authorized by law.

    On Apr. 23, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6523, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3783, 3784, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Federal-Aid Highway System

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide that the United States shall aid the States in the 
    construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes'', 
    approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat., pp. 355-359), and all acts 
    amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, to be expended in 
    accordance with the provisions of said act, as amended, including 
    not to exceed $556,000 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $150,000,000. . . . Provided further, That 
    not to exceed $45,000 of the funds provided for carrying out the 
    provisions of the Federal Highway Act of November 9, 1921 (U.S.C., 
    title 23, secs. 21 and 23), shall be available for the purchase of 
    motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles necessary for carrying 
    out the provisions of said act, including the replacement of not to 
    exceed one such vehicle for use in the administrative work of the 
    Bureau of Public Roads in the District of Columbia. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the part of the paragraph beginning with the word 
    ``Provided', on page 72, line 13, and running down as far as the 
    word ``Columbia'', in lines 21 and 22, is not authorized by law.
        This refers to the purchase of automobiles. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this is merely 
    a limitation. Otherwise the whole amount could be spent for 
    automobiles. This proviso limits the amount which may be used. It 
    is not legislation, and is not subject to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the language in the bill was not 
specifically limited to the funds appropriated, the Chair evidently did 
construe it as limited to the appropriated funds.