[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters; Authorization of Appropriations]
[Â§ 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4979-5007]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
 
Sec. 2. Requirement That Appropriations Be Authorized

    The Constitution (7) states: ``No money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' 
Appropriation bills are the device through which money is permitted to 
be ``drawn from the Treasury'' for expenditure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Art. I Sec. 9 clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But before a general appropriation bill may appropriate funds for 
particular purposes, such purposes must be authorized by law. Thus, an 
appropriation for a project or activity not authorized by law is not in 
order on a general appropriation bill, and a point of order may be made 
against an appropriation that violates this requirement.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The prohibition against unauthorized appropriations and legislation 
        on general appropriation bills is found in Rule XXI clause 2, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1981). The application of this 
        rule is discussed in detail in Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It can be seen that every ``authorization'' for an appropriation is 
only one step in the process by which funds ultimately may become 
available, since it contemplates subsequent action through 
appropriation measures.(9) Of course, the House may decline 
to appropriate funds for particular purposes, even though authorization 
has been given for such purposes.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: It follows, for example, that 
        ``authorizing'' language does not itself constitute ``new 
        spending authority'' which would prohibit the consideration of 
        a bill under Sec. 401 of the Congressional Budget Act. Where 
        the provision in question either impliedly contemplates further 
        recourse to the appropriations process, or makes express 
        reference to the appropriations process when required by 
        Sec. 401, such consideration is not precluded. (Note: The 
        Budget Act is necessarily given only limited treatment herein; 
        see the remarks in Sec. 1, supra, as to the scope of this 
        article.)
10. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The enactment of authorizing legislation must occur prior to, and 
not following, the consideration of an appropriation for the proposed 
purpose. Thus, delaying the availability of an appropriation pending 
enactment of an authorization will not protect that appropriation 
against a point of order.(11) A bill violates the intent of 
the requirement if it permits a portion of a lump sum--unauthorized at 
the time the bill is being considered--to subsequently become available 
without a further

[[Page 4980]]

appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``authorization'' for an appropriation must ordinarily derive 
from statute. An executive order, for example, does not constitute 
sufficient authorization in the absence of proof of its derivation from 
a statute enacted by Congress.(12) On the other hand, 
sufficient ``authorization'' for an appropriation may be found to exist 
in a treaty that has been ratified by both parties; (13) in 
a resolution of the House of the same Congress; (14) or in 
legislation contained in a previous appropriation act which has been 
allowed to become permanent law.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 
        (proceedings related to H.R. 8619). See also Sec. Sec. 2.3, 
        2.4, infra.
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3587.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3656-3658, 3660.
15. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appropriation in excess of the specific amount authorized by law 
is in violation of the rule prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Ch. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
general appropriation bills was originally intended primarily to 
prevent any delay of appropriation bills that might arise from 
contention over propositions of legislation. However, as the 
authorization process itself became more complicated over the years, 
and as the number of programs requiring annual authorization increased, 
there were frequent instances where the congressional appropriations 
process remained uncompleted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. The 
rule as currently implemented serves the purpose of giving legislative 
committees the first opportunity to determine and report to both Houses 
on priorities within specific legislative programs and the conditions 
under which available funds may be expended, before the Appropriations 
Committee recommends allocations of available revenues among various 
legislative priorities during a given fiscal year. Procedures under the 
Congressional Budget Act generally contemplate authorization of 
expenditures by legislative committees as a prior step in the budget 
process. (See, for example, Congressional Budget Act Sec. Sec. 301(c) 
and 402(a).)

    It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ``general 
appropriation bills.'' Neither a resolution providing an appropriation 
for a single government agency,(17)

[[Page 4981]]

nor a joint resolution containing continuing appropriations for diverse 
agencies (to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are 
enacted),(18) is considered a general appropriation bill 
within the purview of the rule. In fact, the restrictions against 
unauthorized items or legislation in a general appropriation bill or 
amendment thereto are not applicable to a joint resolution continuing 
appropriations, despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are 
not ``continuing'' in nature.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 1352, 87th Cong 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1962.
18. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.2 
        (4th ed.).
 1. See Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 2.3 
        (4th ed.).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refusal to Appropriate for Authorized Purposes

Sec. 2.1 The House in the 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.

    On Feb. 18, 1938,(2) during consideration of the State, 
Justice, Commerce, and Labor appropriations for 1939 (H.R. 9544), an 
amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 2175, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. The principle is well 
        established. See also, for example, 88 Cong. Rec. 2114, 2115, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942 (a refusal to appropriate 
        above a certain amount per designated recipient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tarver: On page 104, after line 25, 
    insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        No part of any appropriation contained in this act for the 
    Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be expended for any 
    expense incident to any procedure by suggestion or otherwise, for 
    the admission to any foreign country of any alien unlawfully in the 
    United States for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for 
    readmission to the United States, or for the salary of any employee 
    charged with any duty in connection with the readmission to the 
    United States of any such alien without visa.

    The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order. This comes right back to the point I made 
    originally, that this provision deals with the present immigration 
    laws and is legislation on an appropriation bill. It changes our 
    present act, which contains the provision that it is mandatory upon 
    the officials of the Department of Labor to advise an alien of his 
    status, whether he is legally or illegally in this country. This 
    provision seems to suggest that even a suggestion or an inference, 
    even a suggestion over the phone, would be a violation of the law, 
    and the men who are on the pay roll of the Government would be 
    penalized. I respectfully submit that the language offered as

[[Page 4982]]

    the amendment to the new section is absolutely in the same 
    category, and that it is not germane to the present bill or to the 
    section now under consideration.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Dickstein) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment now suggested and offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia is legislation. The Chair feels he is bound by 
    precedents which have been established for a long time in this 
    House and have been ruled upon by many occupants of the chair more 
    distinguished than he.
        The fact that the failure to appropriate money to carry out the 
    purposes of an act may work an actual hardship in the enforcement 
    of that act or may even effect the practical repeal or certain 
    provisions of the act is entirely within the discretion of Congress 
    itself. Congress does not have to appropriate any money for laws 
    which have been authorized by bills reported from legislative 
    committees. As long ago as 1896 Nelson Dingley, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House, ruled as follows, and I read from 
    page 47 of Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives:

            The House in Committee of the Whole House 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 a part of the parliamentary law of the 
        Committee of the Whole.

        Therefore, the Chair is unable to agree with the contention of 
    the gentleman from New York and overrules the point of order.

Court Judgment as Authorization

Sec. 2.2 An appropriation to pay a judgment awarded by a court is not 
    in order unless such judgment has been properly certified to 
    Congress.

    On June 20, 1935,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8554, a deficiency appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 9811, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Carlson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carlson moves to amend H.R. 8554, page 6, by inserting 
        a new paragraph following line 6, entitled ``Federal Trade 
        Commission'':
            ``For payment to Mrs. William E. Humphrey, or executor of 
        the estate of William E. Humphrey, $3,017 amount due as salary 
        at time of his death as member of Federal Trade Commission.''

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is new legislation in that the 
    judgment has not been certified according to law. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. Under 
    the law,(6) judg

[[Page 4983]]

    ments have to be certified to the Congress before an appropriation 
    is made; therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
 6. The Chair apparently relied on provisions governing procedures 
        whereby claimants obtaining judgments against the United States 
        are compensated from appropriations made for that purpose. See, 
        for example, the present 28 USC Sec. 2518 (based on 26 Stat. 
        537, Sept. 30, 1890 and 43 Stat. 939, Feb. 13, 1925), regarding 
        certification to Congress of judgments of the Court of Claims; 
        see also 28 USC Sec. 2517 (payment of judgments of the Court of 
        Claims out of general appropriations therefor); 28 USC 
        Sec. 2414 (payment of judgments and compromise settlements on 
        claims against the United States); 31 USC Sec. 724a (permanent 
        appropriation to pay final judgments, awards, and compromise 
        settlements); 28 USC Sec. Sec. 2671 et seq. (tort claims 
        procedure); and House Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 852 (1981) (prohibiting private bills and 
        resolutions, and amendments to bills and resolutions, 
        authorizing payment of claims for which suit may be instituted 
        under tort claims procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order as Authorization

Sec. 2.3 The words ``authorized by law'' in Rule XXI clause 2, were 
    construed to refer to a ``law enacted by the Congress,'' and not to 
    encompass executive orders.

    On Mar. 2, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1682, 1683, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY

        Salaries and expenses: The limitation in the appropriation for 
    salaries and expenses, War Relocation Authority, in the National 
    War Agency Appropriation Act, 1945, on the amount which may be 
    expended for travel is hereby increased from $375,000 to $475,000; 
    and of said appropriation not to exceed $280,477 is made available 
    for expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1945 incident to the 
    establishment, maintenance, and operation of the emergency refugee 
    shelter at Fort Ontario, N.Y., provided for in the President's 
    message of June 12, 1944, to the Congress (H. Doc. 656).
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against that part of the section following the 
    semicolon in line 20 and ending on page 14, line 2, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; furthermore, that there is no 
    specific authority in existing statutes for the operation of this 
    particular program. The Executive order of the President which 
    created the War Relocation Authority does not encompass the 
    activities for which these funds would be used. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Dworshak] makes the point of 
    order against the language beginning in the concluding part of line 
    20 on page 13 and extending through the balance of

[[Page 4984]]

    the paragraph, that this appropriation is not authorized by law.
        Under the rules of the House, no appropriation shall be 
    reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an 
    amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by 
    law.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that an Executive order does not 
    meet the requirement stated in that rule. Therefore, not being 
    authorized by law enacted by Congress, the appropriation would not 
    be in order. The mere fact that it may be a reappropriation would 
    not make it in order if the original appropriation was not 
    authorized by law.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Idaho.

Sec. 2.4 An executive order does not meet the requirement that 
    appropriations must be authorized by law.

    On July 5, 1945,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649), 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair. . . .
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the bill be considered as read and that all Members desiring 
    to submit amendments or points of order have leave to submit them 
    at this time.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the unanimous consent request that has just been granted, I make 
    the point of order against the first item, National War Labor 
    Board, on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    same ground against the item for the Office of Defense 
    Transportation on page 5.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The point of order is conceded, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcantonio) 
    makes a point of order which the gentleman

[[Page 4985]]

    from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) concedes. The Chair sustains the point 
    of order.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, we do not 
    all have to concede the point of order. I want to ask the gentleman 
    from Missouri a question. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: . . . If these were times of peace and this agency 
    had been created by the Executive order, as it was, I submit that a 
    point of order would lie against it. But the President of the 
    United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces. One of 
    the necessary incidents to that position is the ability and the 
    power to see that our troops and the materials to support them are 
    transported. For that reason, in order to break a bottleneck in our 
    transportation system, the President of the United States set up 
    the Office of Defense Transportation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chairman again states his opinion, regardless 
    of his own beliefs as to the merits of this particular office, that 
    the point of order must be sustained.
        The rule is very explicit to the effect that no appropriation 
    shall be reported in any general appropriation bill or be in order 
    as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously 
    authorized by law.
        In this present Congress, the present occupant of the chair 
    ruled that an Executive order was not a law such as could comply 
    with this rule.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sees no reason for departing from that holding. The 
    Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1973 
        (H.R. 8619).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language in Prior Appropriation Measure as Authorization

Sec. 2.5 Legislation in an appropriation bill may be subject to a point 
    of order under Rule XXI clause 2, but it may become permanent law 
    if it is not challenged and is permanent in its language and 
    nature; thus, language in a previous appropriation act providing 
    that ``hereafter such sums . . . as may be approved by Congress 
    shall be available (to increase domestic consumption of farm 
    commodities),'' was held to be permanent authorizing legislation 
    capable of supporting subsequent appropriations therefor.

    On May 20, 1964,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 
11202) for fiscal 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, raised a point 
of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 11422, 11423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: My point of order is to lines 3 through 9, the 
    portion of the

[[Page 4986]]

    section beginning with the figure in parentheses 5. I will read it. 
    It reads as follows:

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

        There is legislation in an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) makes a point of order 
    addressed to the language appearing on page 16, line 2, beginning 
    with ``and'' and continuing through and including line 9, on the 
    ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had called to its attention the section which was 
    contained in Public Law 88-250, in which it appears that the 
    appropriation here, which incidentally is also in the nature of a 
    limitation, was authorized by the Congress by the inclusion of the 
    words pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi that 
    ``hereafter such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one 
    year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for 
    such purpose,'' and so forth.
        The Chair therefore holds that the language in that public law 
    cited is authority for the inclusion in the pending bill of the 
    language to which the point of order was addressed, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.6 A point of order having been raised that a portion of a lump 
    sum supplemental appropriation for the White House was not 
    authorized by law, the Chairman determined that the permanent law 
    authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, as well as 
    legislative provisions authorizing additional employment contained 
    in an earlier regular appropriation bill enacted for that fiscal 
    year, constituted sufficient authorization.

    On Nov. 30, 1973,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
11576) a point of order was raised against a provision, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 38854, 38855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             The White House Office

                             salaries and expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'', 
        $1,500,000.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        I raise a point of order to the language of lines 5, 6, 7, and 
    8 of page 14 under the provisions of rule XXI, clause 2, which 
    prohibits legislation on appropriation bills and which prohibits 
    the appropriation of funds without prior legislative authorization.
        Mr. Chairman, I would now like to read from the language of the 
    commit

[[Page 4987]]

    tee's report on White House office, salaries and expenses:
        The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000, a 
    reduction of $110,000 below the amount of the budget estimate.
        These supplemental funds were requested to provide the 
    additional funds needed for the activities of the Counselors to the 
    President and their staffs, the President's Foreign Intelligence 
    Advisory Board, the President's Special Assistant for Consumer 
    Affairs, the Council on Economic Policy, and other professional 
    staff and consultants.

        Mr. Chairman, before I pursue this matter further, I would 
    point out first of all that when an item in an appropriation bill 
    is defective as violative of the rules of the House--in this 
    instance, Rule XXI, clause 2--the whole of the particular item 
    under the point of order falls.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order 
    is directed specifically to the President's special assistant for 
    consumer affairs and to that office, which was challenged earlier 
    on this floor this year by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross). 
    Upon his point of order the Chair acted affirmatively and ruled in 
    support of the point of order and ruled out the item.
        I challenge further on the same grounds, Mr. Chairman, the 
    appropriations for counsellor to the President in that there is no 
    statutory authority for counsellors to the President. I challenge 
    further the President's foreign intelligence advisory board in that 
    there is also, to my knowledge, no statutory authority for this 
    particular office.
        Also, Mr. Chairman, I challenge on the same grounds again the 
    counsel on economic policy of the President and his staff and 
    offices, appurtenances and expenditures pertinent thereto. I would 
    point out further, Mr. Chairman, that under the rules of the House 
    of Representatives, that the burden is upon the proponent of the 
    appropriation bill to establish the legislative basis and to cite 
    the statutes upon which the Appropriations Committee bases its 
    action in appropriating funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . Sections 103, 105, and 106 
    of title 3 authorize appropriations for the purpose of paying the 
    salaries of certain persons in the Executive Office of the 
    President. The appropriation bill itself, in the paragraph 
    beginning on page 14, line 5, gives no indication that the 
    appropriation would be used for any unauthorized purpose. The 
    paragraph merely provides a lump sum for the Executive Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan, in making his point of order, goes 
    beyond the provisions of the bill and looks at the provisions of 
    the committee report.
        The Chair does not believe that in this case, any more than in 
    the case made by the gentleman from Iowa earlier in the 
    consideration of the bill, it is within his province to go beyond 
    the plain provisions of the bill, and the authorizing statute.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier ruling cited by Mr. Dingell had 
taken place on June 15, 1973. Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
had sustained a point of

[[Page 4988]]

order against an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
established by executive order, where the Committee on Appropriations 
had not cited statutory authority for the appropriation (contained in 
H.R. 8619, agriculture-environment and consumer protection 
appropriations bill). Congress subsequently enacted Public Law No. 93-
143, the Treasury, Executive Office Appropriations Act for fiscal 1974, 
containing funds for the White House Office and legislation, effective 
for the same fiscal year covered by the supplemental appropriation 
bill, permitting the President to employ consultants notwithstanding 
other provisions of law. For that reason, and because it was not 
readily apparent from the language of either the supplemental bill, the 
authorizing statute, or the committee report that a portion of the lump 
sum was to fund an unauthorized office, the Chair overruled the point 
of order.

Appropriation Bill as Containing Specific Approval

Sec. 2.7 The restriction in law prohibiting the use of any funds for 
    the preparation of final plans or for construction of the west 
    front extension ``until specifically approved and appropriated 
    therefor by the Congress'' was held not to require legislative 
    ``approval'' prior to the appropriation, where the legislative 
    history of the law indicated that other law was to be considered 
    sufficient authorization for the project and that only further 
    approval through the appropriation process was required.

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriations bill 
(H.R. 6691) for fiscal 1974, Mr. J. Edward Roush, of Indiana, raised a 
point of order against the following language in the bill, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 12781, 12782, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Extension of the Capitol

        For an amount, additional to amounts heretofore appropriated, 
    for ``Extension of the Capitol'', in substantial accordance with 
    plans for extension of the West Central front heretofore approved 
    by the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, to be 
    expended, as authorized by law, by the Architect of the Capitol 
    under the direction of such Commission, $58,000,000, to remain 
    available until expended. . . .
        Mr. Roush: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is based upon these 
    following facts: The appropriation as proposed

[[Page 4989]]

    lacks legislative authority and, secondly, the language 
    ``$58,000,000 to remain available until expended'' constitutes 
    legislation on a general appropriation bill. . . .
        I would refer to the appropriation bill last year, which would 
    be Public Law 92-342, under the section ``Extension of the 
    Capitol:''

            Funds available under this appropriation may be used for 
        the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the 
        west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be 
        used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of 
        construction of said project until specifically approved and 
        appropriated therefor by the Congress.

        I point out to the Chairman that the plans have not been 
    specifically approved. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have searched this matter diligently and the 
    only authority that I can find for the extension of the west front 
    of the Capitol necessarily has to be inferred from the language of 
    a bill which was passed in 1855. . . .
        Mr. [Robert R.] Casey of Texas: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    project is authorized, and I would point out that the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Roush) who is making the point of order, failed 
    to read all of Public Law 242 of the 84th Congress.
        The law reads:

            Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is 
        hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for 
        Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the 
        President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives--

        Et cetera.

            In substantial accordance with Scheme B of the 
        architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress 
        and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document 
        Numbered 385, Fifty-Eighth Congress), but with such 
        modifications and additions, including provisions for 
        restaurant facilities and such other facilities in the Capitol 
        Grounds, together with utilities . . .

        It does not just refer to one item. I think this gives great 
    latitude.

            Together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other 
        appurtenant or necessary items . . . there is hereby 
        appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, that the Architect of the Capitol under the direction 
        of said commission and without regard to the provisions of 
        section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized 
        to enter into contracts.

        Et cetera.
        This law was amended February 14, 1956, and there was added 
    this amendment under ``Extension of the Capitol.'' This was Public 
    Law 406, 84th Congress:

            The paragraph entitled ``Extension of the Capitol'' in the 
        Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, is hereby amended by 
        inserting after the words ``to remain available until 
        expended'' and before the colon, a comma and the following: 
        ``and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 
        additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be 
        required for the purposes hereof. . . .''

        The Chairman: (19) . . . The gentleman from Indiana 
    . . . contends that Public Law 92-342 requires ``specific'' 
    approval by Congress of prepara

[[Page 4990]]

    tion of final plans or initiation of construction prior to an 
    appropriation therefor. The Chair has examined the legislative 
    history of the provision relied upon by the gentleman from Indiana 
    in support of his argument that the appropriation must be 
    specifically approved by Congress prior to the appropriation, and 
    it is clear from the debate in the Senate on March 28, 1972, that 
    approval in an appropriation bill was all that was required by the 
    provision in Public Law 92-342. The Chair feels that there is 
    sufficient authorization contained in [Public Law 84-242] as 
    amended by Public Law 84-406 for the appropriation contained in the 
    pending bill, and that no further specific authorization is 
    required prior to an appropriation for final plans and construction 
    for the West Front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For these reasons the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. Sec. 2.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing 
    that appropriations in the bill available for travel expenses were 
    to be available for expenses of attendance of officers and 
    employees at meetings or conventions was held to be in order since 
    such provision was authorized to be included in appropriation bills 
    by statutory provisions.

    On May 2, 1951, (20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following proceeding took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 4738, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Washington: On page 36, 
    line 17, insert the following:

            Sec. 104. Appropriations in this act available for travel 
        expenses shall be available for expenses of attendance of 
        officers and employees at meetings or conventions of members of 
        societies or associations concerned with the work of the bureau 
        or office for which the appropriation concerned is made.

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it involves 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The gentleman from Washington has 
    called the attention of the Chair to section 83, title 5 of the 
    United States Code. Permit the Chair to read the language contained 
    in that provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            No money appropriated by any act shall be expended for 
        membership fees or dues of any officer or employee of the 
        United States or of the District of Columbia, in any society or 
        association or for expenses of attendance of any person at any 
        meeting or convention of members of any society or association 
        unless such fees, dues, or expenses are authorized to be paid 
        by specific appropriations for such purposes or are provided 
        for in express terms in some general appropriation.

        The Chair feels that the language which has just been read 
    governs the matter and overrules the point of order

[[Page 4991]]

    made by the gentleman from New York.

Senate Confirmation of Appointees Required Prior to Appropriation for 
    Positions

Sec. Sec. 2.9 Although the President has the power to appoint foreign 
    ambassadors and ministers, an appropriation to pay such salaries is 
    not in order unless the Senate has confirmed the appointment.

    On Aug. 17, 1937, (22) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8245, a deficiency appropriation bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.  81 Cong. Rec. 9175, 9176, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries of ambassadors and ministers: For an additional amount 
    for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal year 1938, for 
    the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
    to Lithuania at $10,000 per annum, $8,333.34: Provided, That the 
    appropriation for salaries of ambassadors and ministers, fiscal 
    year 1938, shall be available for payment of the salary of an envoy 
    extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Estonia and Latvia at 
    $10,000 per annum. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point on order against the language on page 28, lines 4 to 12, 
    inclusive, as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    not authorized by law. It creates a new position, that of Minister 
    of Lithuania. The President has no constitutional right and is 
    empowered by no act of Congress to create additional positions. 
    Therefore, I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and if the 
    Chair is in doubt I would like to speak a little further on the 
    matter and cite some precedents. . . .
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the item is subject to a point of order for the reason that the 
    Minister has been appointed but not confirmed. The President has 
    the right to appoint, but if the minister has not been confirmed 
    the Congress would have no right to appropriate. There has been no 
    confirmation. I think the gentleman's point of order is well taken, 
    if he chooses to make it. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule. As 
    stated by the gentleman from Virginia, the President has the right 
    to appoint. At the present time, however, the Senate has not 
    confirmed the appointment. The appropriation, therefore, is subject 
    to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Implied Authorization

Sec. Sec. 2.10 Appropriations for travel expenses, including 
    examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, under the 
    heading ``Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture,'' 
    were held authorized by law as necessary

[[Page 4992]]

    to carry out the basic law setting up the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7786, the Department of Agriculture chapter of the 
general appropriation bill of 1951. The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 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 6 to 7, page 
    204, ``travel expenses, including examination of estimates for 
    appropriations in the field.''. . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] has made a point of 
    order against the language appearing on page 204 of the chapter 
    beginning in line 6, which has been quoted by him, on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of the 
    rules of the House. The Chair has examined the language and has 
    listened attentively to the arguments presented and has also made 
    an examination of the precedents and decisions of the House. It 
    appears that in 1938 a point of order was made against language 
    similar to this, and the Chairman, Mr. Jones, of Texas, overruled 
    the point of order. The decision is found on page 2656 of the 
    Record of March 1, 1938. On the basis of that precedent and 
    decision the Chair overrules the point of order.

    The 1938 decision relied on by the Chair took place during 
consideration of H.R. 9621, appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior. An amendment had been offered, reading in part as follows: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 1, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: Page 72, beginning with line 
    12, insert the following:

            Administration provisions and limitations: For all 
        expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts 
        amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the 
        reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures 
        from said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 
        for personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the 
        office of the chief engineer . . .; examination of estimates 
        for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and 
        deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for 
        lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding.

    The following exchange took place:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not 
    authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic 
    prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision 
    for examination of estimates for appropriations in

[[Page 4993]]

     the field, which is not authorized by law; $15,000 for 
    lithographing and engraving, not authorized by law; the purchase of 
    ice, the purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees, 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. This amendment 
    provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 
    1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemenatary thereto, known 
    as the reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures 
    from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The Chair thinks that 
    the items to which the gentleman from New York objects specifically 
    are incidental to the main purpose of carrying out the reclamation 
    law. These incidental items it seems to the Chair are necessary to 
    carry out the major purposes of the reclamation law, and the Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Mr. Taber offered an amendment to strike the words ``examination of 
estimates for appropriations in the field,'' which amendment was 
rejected.

Specific Project Authorized by General Grant of Authority

Sec. 2.11 Legislation authorizing the Administrator of the Federal 
    Aviation Administration to develop and test improved aircraft, and 
    legislation transferring and vesting those functions ``including 
    the development and construction of a civil supersonic aircraft'' 
    in the Secretary of Transportation was held to authorize an 
    appropriation for the construction of prototypes of the civil 
    supersonic aircraft.

    On May 27, 1970,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17755), Mr. Sidney R. Yates, 
of Illinois, raised a point of order against certain language in the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 17310, 17311, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For an additional amount for expenses, not otherwise provided 
    for, necessary for the development of a civil supersonic aircraft, 
    including the construction of two prototype aircraft of the same 
    design, and advances of funds without regard to the provisions of 
    section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529), 
    $289,965,000, to remain available until expended. . . .
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriation for the 
    development of a supersonic aircraft under the terms of a contract 
    between the Government and the Boeing Co. The authorization for the 
    appropriation is admittedly section 312(b) of the Federal Aviation 
    Act, which provides as follows:

            The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise 
        such development work and service testing as tends to the 
        creation of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, 
        and appliances.
            For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make 
        pur

[[Page 4994]]

        chases--including exchange--by negotiation, or otherwise, of 
        experimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and 
        appliances, which seem to offer special advantages to 
        aeronautics.

        There is nothing in either provision which authorizes the 
    spending of public funds for private purposes or private gains. 
    There is nothing in either provision which gives the benefits of 
    whatever development or testing is undertaken to the person or the 
    company doing the work. My point here is if the Government pays for 
    the work, as it is in this case, then the Government is entitled to 
    the product. The Government owns the product because it has paid 
    for it. There is no provision in the law which permits gifts or for 
    making grants. That is not the case in this contract because the 
    plane when built will belong to Boeing. Under the contract, 
    whatever results from the development belongs to Boeing, which has 
    the burden of producing the SST. Under the contract the Government 
    is to be repaid for its money through royalties from the sale of 
    planes, but the planes when completed will belong to the Boeing Co. 
    Yet, as I said, there is no authority on the statute books for 
    loans or grants to the contractor. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raised the point of 
    order against the appropriation appearing on page 2 of the bill, 
    entitled ``Civil Supersonic Aircraft Development,'' on the ground 
    that there is no authorization in law for the development of such 
    an aircraft, and for the expenditure provided herein.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) in responding to 
    the point of order has cited certain provisions of law which have 
    been recognized by the gentleman from Illinois as pertaining 
    directly to the authorization of the civil supersonic aircraft 
    development program.
        The Chair has examined the laws to which attention has been 
    directed. Chapter 20 of title 49, United States Code, relates to 
    the Federal aviation program of the Federal Government, and sets 
    forth the powers and duties of the Federal Aviation Agency and, as 
    has been pointed out, empowers the Administrator to ``undertake or 
    supervise such developmental work and service testing as tends to 
    the creation of improved aircraft. For such purpose, the 
    Administrator is empowered to make purchases--of experimental 
    aircraft.''
        Even broader, I think, is the delegation of authority that 
    appears in Public Law 89-670, establishing the Department of 
    Transportation. Section 6(c)(1) of that act states as follows:

            There are hereby transferred to and vested in the Secretary 
        (of Transportation) all functions, powers, and duties of the 
        Federal Aviation Agency, and of the Administrator and other 
        officers and offices thereof, including the development and 
        construction of a civil supersonic aircraft.

        The Chair has heard the argument of the gentleman from Illinois 
    with reference to his contention that this must be construed 
    narrowly, but does not find in the law or in the precedents any 
    requirement for as narrow a construction as the gentleman has 
    contended for. It is a broad delegation of

[[Page 4995]]

    authority, and must not be construed as narrowly as the gentleman 
    has sought.
        In view of these citations, which give the Secretary a broad 
    experimental and development authority and bestow upon him in 
    explicit terms the authority to develop and construct a Civil 
    Supersonic Aircraft, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

``Miscellaneous'' Items as Authorized

Sec. 2.12 Language in an appropriation bill making appropriations for 
    certain items ``and other miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise 
    provided for'' was held to apply to regular expenses that are 
    authorized by law, and in order.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, a State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and 
Federal Loan Agency appropriation. A provision was read as follows, and 
a point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2378, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miscellaneous expenses: For stationery, supplies, materials and 
    equipment, freight, express, and drayage charges, washing towels, 
    advertising, purchase of lawbooks and books of reference, 
    periodicals and newspapers, communication service and postage; for 
    the maintenance, repair, and operation of one motor-propelled 
    delivery truck; for rent in the District of Columbia, and 
    elsewhere; for official traveling expenses, including examination 
    of estimates for appropriations in the field, and other 
    miscellaneous expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
    effectively carry out the provisions of the act providing for the 
    administration of the United States courts, and for other purposes, 
    $26,000. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: . . . I make a point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 15 with the word ``and'' and 
    ending in line 16 with the word ``for.''
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman makes a point of 
    order against the language reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And other miscellaneous expenses not otherwise provided 
        for?

        Mr. Jones: That is right.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    provides merely for regular expenses that are authorized by law. I 
    do not see anything in this subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair fails to see any reason why the 
    language referred to should be subject to a point of order, and 
    unless the gentleman from Ohio can be more specific in his 
    objection the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 4996]]

Increasing Appropriation Within Authorized Limits

Sec. 2.13 It is in order to increase the appropriation in an 
    appropriation bill for purposes authorized by law if such increase 
    does not exceed the amount authorized for such objects.

    On Mar. 10, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation 
bill. An amendment was allowed which restored part of a sum which had 
previously been stricken from the bill, where such amendment did not 
cause the appropriation for the objects under consideration to exceed 
the total amount for such objects authorized by law. The portion of the 
bill in question, and proceedings relating to it, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2224, 2225, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Flood control, general: For the construction and maintenance of 
    certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 
    for other purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Flood 
    Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented, 
    including printing and binding, newspapers, lawbooks, books of 
    reference, periodicals, and office supplies and equipment required 
    in the Office of the Chief of Engineers to carry out the purposes 
    of this appropriation, and for preliminary examinations and surveys 
    of and contingencies in connection with flood-control projects 
    authorized by law, $144,973,700: . . .
        Mr. [David D.] Terry [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Terry: ``On page 7, line 5, strike 
        out $144,973,700 and insert $147,078,700.''

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
    raise the amount carried in the bill, $144,973,000 for flood 
    control to an amount that will be sufficient to include the 
    beginning of the work on the Table Rock Reservoir.
        Congress has authorized for the White River Basin $49,000,000 
    to be appropriated for the prosecution of a comprehensive dual 
    purpose flood control and power program in the White River Basin. 
    According to the testimony in the hearings, $15,870,000 was 
    allocated from funds previously appropriated against this 
    authorization. The Budget has presented four projects in the White 
    River Basin which total $37,525,000.
        The appropriation of this amount, in conjunction with the 
    $15,870,000, would result in a total of $53,395,000, or $4,395,000 
    in excess of the $49,000,000 that has been authorized to be 
    appropriated.
        The Committee of the Whole eliminated the $6,500,000 which was 
    included in the Budget sent down on

[[Page 4997]]

    February 20 for the construction of Table Rock Reservoir. When this 
    matter was up in the subcommittee at the time of the marking up of 
    the bill, a motion was made by a committee member to eliminate 
    Table Rock, but the subcommittee voted against cutting out the 
    Table Rock item. When the bill came up in the full committee on 
    appropriations, on a very close vote, the committee eliminated 
    Table Rock on the theory that--and it was a fact--the appropriation 
    was over the authorization. So the Table Rock item was eliminated, 
    as I say, by a very close vote.

        My amendment merely seeks to raise the amount to the limit of 
    the congressional authorization. If we adopt my amendment we add 
    $2,105,000 to the amount in the bill for flood control, but it will 
    permit considerable work to be done on the Table Rock project this 
    year and the coming fiscal year, and we shall still be within the 
    authorized appropriation limit carried in the Budget estimate for 
    the whole bill, and we shall not be above the $49,000,000 which has 
    been authorized by the Congress for the White River Basin. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The authorization for these two projects was only $49,000,000. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this exceeds the total amount authorized. . . .
        Mr. Terry: Mr. Chairman, the committee in charge of the bill 
    has checked those figures with the Army engineers in charge of 
    flood control, and the figure that I have included in the amendment 
    is the figure given by the engineers. It shows a total of 
    $53,395,000 will be appropriated, including $15,870,000 past 
    amounts, and those in the Budget estimates for 1943, in the sum of 
    $37,525,000, with a $49,000,000 authorization. That would exceed 
    the authorization $4,395,000. If $6,500,000 for Table Rock is 
    stricken out, the authorizations will exceed the appropriations in 
    an amount of $2,105,000, which is the amount of my amendment, and 
    is an amount that will not exceed the Budget estimate and will not 
    exceed the $49,000,000 authorized by the Legislative Committee of 
    this House for the comprehensive plan for the White River Basin.
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I may say the gentleman's own figures 
    show that these are the items to begin the project and they will 
    exceed the amount of the Budget estimate.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        This section of the bill, lines 4 and 5, is for preliminary 
    examination, surveys, or for contingencies in connection with 
    flood-control projects authorized by law.
        The gentleman from Arkansas in his amendment raises the 
    appropriation, but in that raise it only applies to those projects 
    which are authorized by law; therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.

Sec. 2.14 An amendment proposing simply to increase an appropriation 
    for a specific object over the amount car

[[Page 4998]]

    ried in the appropriation bill does not constitute a change in law 
    unless such increase is in excess of that authorized.

    On Feb. 28, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4492, a Treasury and Post Office appropriation bill. 
The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2029, 2030, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Construction of public buildings outside of the District of 
    Columbia: For continuation of construction of, and acquisition of 
    sites for, public buildings outside of the District of Columbia, 
    including the purposes and objects, and subject to the limitations, 
    specified under this head in the Third Deficiency Appropriation 
    Act, fiscal year 1937, and also including those increases in the 
    limits of cost of certain authorized projects, 25 in number, as 
    specified in House Document No. 177, Seventy-sixth Congress, 
    $30,000,000: Provided, That the provisions of section 322 of the 
    act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412), shall not apply with respect 
    to the rental of temporary quarters for housing Federal activities 
    during the replacement or remodeling of buildings authorized under 
    this or previous acts.
        Mr. [James F.] O'Connor [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Connor: Page 51, line 8, 
        strikeout ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$60,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that it is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Montana [Mr. O'Connor] offers an amendment 
    on page 51, line 8, seeking to increase the appropriation there 
    stated, $30,000,000, to the figure of $60,000,000, to which 
    amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of 
    order on the ground that the increase in the item sought to be made 
    is not authorized by law.
        The Chair invites attention to Public Resolution 122, Seventy-
    fifth Congress, title III, Federal Public Buildings, and quotes in 
    part as follows:

            . . . is hereby increased from $70,000,000 to $130,000,000.

        There is a balance remaining of that authorization of 
    $71,000,000. The pending bill carries an appropriation of 
    $30,000,000, which would leave $41,000,000 unappropriated. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Montana seeks to increase the 
    $30,000,000 appropriation to $60,000,000, or seeks to appropriate 
    $30,000,000 of the remaining $41,000,000 authorized by law. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.15 Language in an appropriation bill providing an additional 
    amount within the total authorized was held to be in order.

[[Page 4999]]

    On Feb. 25, 1958, (13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10881, a bill making supplemental appropriations. The 
following provision was read and a point of order was raised as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 2766, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 make a point of 
    order against the paragraph on page 4, lines 1 to 9 of the bill on 
    the ground that it changes existing law. I refer the chairman to 
    the language of the appropriation bill which became law on the 2d 
    day of August. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language objected to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] provides for an additional amount. This of course means an 
    additional amount to that provided for in the authorization 
    contained in Public Law 540 of the 84th Congress.
        The Chair therefore feels that in view of the fact that there 
    are ample funds authorized to carry out this program, and that the 
    appropriation herein proposed is within the authorized amount, the 
    point of order cannot be sustained.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The law referred to in the point of order 
was contained in Pub. L. No. 85-118 which 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'' a designated amount. That limitation, since it 
applied only to the appropriation in that act, had no applicability to 
the supplemental appropriation which was in dispute here.

Appropriation of Total Authorization

Sec. 2.16 Where the law authorizes an appropriation of a specific 
    amount and a paragraph of an appropriation bill appropriates a 
    portion thereof, an amendment changing the figure in the bill to 
    the full amount authorized is in order.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5269, an agricultural

[[Page 5000]]

appropriation bill. The following portion of the bill was before the 
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 3454, 3455, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Farm Tenancy

        To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the 
    provisions of title I of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, 
    approved July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1000-1006), including the 
    employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and 
    elsewhere, exclusive of printing and binding, as authorized by said 
    act, $24,984,500, together with the unexpended balance of the 
    appropriation made under said act for the fiscal year 1939.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 93, line 
        22, after the word ``Act'', strike ``$24,584,500'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$50,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the $50,000,000 is not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma provides that the figures, $24,984,500, be 
    stricken out and $50,000,000 inserted in lieu thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill is making appropriations for the Department of 
    Agriculture, and for the Farm Credit Administration, for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1940. The Chair has examined the law, and the 
    law provides, on the question of farm tenancy, that not to exceed 
    $10,000,000 shall be appropriated for the year ending June 30, 
    1938; not to exceed $25,000,000 for the year ending June 30, 1939; 
    and not to exceed $50,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

Effect of Language Limiting Appropriations to Purposes Authorized by 
    Law

Sec. 2.17 A point of order will not lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some 
    of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation 
    of funds have not been authorized, since language in the bill 
    limits use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''

    On June 18, 1958,(17) a point of order was made against 
provisions of H.R. 12858 (appropriations for civil functions 
administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies of the 
Department of the Interior), as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           construction, general

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized

[[Page 5001]]

        by law; detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
        projects (including those for development with participation or 
        under consideration for participation by States, local 
        governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible for 
        selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
        commitment of the Government to construction); and not to 
        exceed $1,600,000 for transfer to the Secretary of the Interior 
        for conservation of fish and wildlife as authorized by law; to 
        remain available until expended $577,085,500: . . . Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for 
        projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by a law 
        limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may 
        be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
        to be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: [I make a point of order 
    against the] paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending on page 
    5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the appropriation which 
    has not been authorized by law. The figure there is $577,085,500. I 
    am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by letter dated June 11, 
    1958, that there is contained here $57,702,253 in projects which 
    are not authorized by law.
        I am able by referring to the different items on page 5 of the 
    Report that there are the Beaver Reservoir in Arkansas, the Bull 
    Shoals Reservoir, Arkansas and Missouri. . . . There are probably 
    15 or 20 of those items. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: [The] gentleman makes a 
    point of order against the figure $577,085,500 in line 8 on page 4. 
    But the point of order does not lie for the reason that in the 
    proviso at the bottom of page 4 it is specifically provided:
        Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
    used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized by 
    a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated.
        So the point of order is not well taken, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, these projects are without and beyond 
    the limits of the authorization. That is the point of order.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, may I also call attention to the 
    language beginning on page 3 as follows:

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.

        The figure the gentleman refers to is for this specific 
    purpose.
        The Chairman [Hale Boggs, of Louisiana]: The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
        The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23, 
    page 3, the language is as follows:

            For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
        shore protection, and related projects authorized by law.

        Then further, as again pointed out by the chairman, there is 
    this language on the bottom of page 4:

            That no part of this appropriation shall be used for 
        projects not authorized by law.

        Now, that language, in the opinion of the Chair, is quite 
    specific in that none

[[Page 5002]]

    of these funds regardless of the amount involved, can be used for 
    any project which is not authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.18 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    construction of public works and specifying that none of the funds 
    appropriated should be used for projects not authorized by law ``or 
    which are authorized by a law limiting the amount to be 
    appropriated therefor, except as may be within the limits of the 
    amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated'' was held to 
    limit expenditures to authorized projects and a point of order 
    against the language as legislation was overruled.

    On May 24, 1960,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 12326), the 
following paragraph of the bill was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the prosecution of river and harbor . . . and related 
    projects authorized by law; detailed studies, and plans and 
    specifications, of projects . . . authorized or made eligible for 
    selection by law . . .; and not to exceed $1,400,000 for transfer 
    to the Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and 
    wildlife as authorized by law; $662,622,300, to remain available 
    until expended: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall 
    be used for projects not authorized by law or which are authorized 
    by a law limiting the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as 
    may be within the limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized 
    to be appropriated: . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman to make (a) point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language to be found on page 4, beginning on line 
    18 and into line 21, ``or which are authorized by a law limiting 
    the amount to be appropriated therefor, except as may be within the 
    limits of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be 
    appropriated.''
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against that language 
    on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. I 
    make the further point of order that this is authorizing 
    appropriations for projects not authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote briefly from ``Cannon's 
    Precedents,'' page 63:

            As a general proposition whenever a limitation is 
        accompanied by the words ``unless,'' ``except,'' ``until,'' 
        ``if,'' ``however,'' there is ground to view the so-called 
        limitation with suspicion, and in case of doubt as to its 
        ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the 
        conservative side. By doing so appropriation bills will be 
        relieved of much of the legislation which is being constantly 
        grafted

[[Page 5003]]

        upon them and a check given a practice which seems to the 
        Chair, both unwise and in violation of the spirit, as well as 
        the substance, of our rules.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the 
    language. The legislative committee has placed outside limits on 
    the amount of money which can be spent in a given river basin. Such 
    basin may have a number of dams or projects in it. Without the 
    language these monetary limits could be exceeded by action on an 
    appropriation bill, thus setting aside the action of the 
    legislative committee.
        This is strictly a limitation.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the 
    Chair that more than one member of the committee has admitted that 
    there are appropriations not authorized by law, that this is a 
    subterfuge, and I say, Mr. Chairman, designed to controvert the 
    rule of the House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa care to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on Appropriations 
    for the past 18 years. I cannot recall when a point of order has 
    ever been raised against similar language in an appropriation bill. 
    The language is simply limiting an appropriation expenditure, 
    providing that the expenditure shall not be made until such project 
    is authorized by law. I fail to see, Mr. Chairman, where a point of 
    order could lie against this language because it is purely a simple 
    limitation of expenditure on an appropriation bill; nothing more, 
    nothing less.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958, by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Taber). It also happens that the present 
    occupant of the chair was in the chair at that time. The Chair 
    ruled then that the language was specific, that there was no 
    question about its referring to the controlling phase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the preceding one 
demonstrate that when a lumpsum appropriation is restricted by specific 
language in the bill to projects authorized by law, indications in the 
committee report to the effect that certain unauthorized projects may 
be contemplated must be conceded to be without legislative effect. 
Where there is such a conflict in language, the language in the bill 
itself would prevail. Further discussion of this concept appears in 
Chapter 26, infra.

[[Page 5004]]

Sec. 2.19 A point of order will not lie against an amendment proposing 
    to increase a lump-sum appropriation for construction and 
    rehabilitation of public works projects when language in the bill 
    limits use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects . . . as 
    authorized by law.''

    On June 5, 1959,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for 
civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Budge: On page 8, line 5, strike 
        out ``$128,473,239'' and insert ``$128,973,-239.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The amendment has just 
    been read and I am reserving a point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman: (21) Will the gentleman from Missouri 
    state his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: The point of order is that the project is 
    unauthorized.
        Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order without further discussion, because the amendment simply 
    changes the amount of the bill without specific reference to any 
    project.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The paragraph to which this amendment was 
offered began as follows: ``Construction and Rehabilitation. For 
construction and rehabilitation of authorized reclamation projects or 
parts thereof (including power transmission facilities) and for other 
related activities, as authorized by law to remain available until 
expended, $128,473,239 . . .''

Sec. 2.20 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for increased pay costs, where the objection was 
    based on the ground that a portion of the increase was not yet 
    authorized by law; it was noted that language in the bill limited 
    use of the appropriation to pay costs ``authorized by or pursuant 
    to law.''

    On May 21, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11400, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following

[[Page 5005]]

paragraphs of the bill were read for amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                          House of Representatives

                          compensation of members

                      Compensation of Members, $1,975,000

                     salaries, officers, and employees

                       ``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the 
    ground that, as admitted by the committee, this contains moneys to 
    be appropriated that have not been authorized by Congress.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will inquire: Does the 
    gentleman's point of order refer to lines 12, 13, and 14?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, 
    I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the 
    Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is, I believe, only 
    referring to the pay increase for the Speaker and other Members-- 
    the item on line 12.
        Mr. Gross: Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line 
    items contains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much 
    as I can to be sure I get the funds covered. If the gentleman will 
    tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with 
    the permission of the Chair.
        Mr. Mahon: The funds which have not been authorized are 
    included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure.
        Mr. Gross: Those are the only funds that have not been 
    authorized?
        Mr. Mahon: Yes; that is the figure involved. A small portion of 
    that has not been authorized. . . .
        The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That 
    is correct.
        Mr. Gross: You mean the $1,975,000?
        Mr. Mahon: No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But it cannot 
    be paid unless it is authorized. Otherwise, it would revert unused 
    to the Treasury.
        The Chairman: The Chair again is confused. The Chair sees no 
    reference to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language 
    referred to here.
        Mr. Mahon: It is part of the figure of $1,975,000. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is still in a quandary because the 
    language in line 7 says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or 
    pursuant to law.''
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, all compensation due by law to Members 
    of Congress is authorized. If it is not authorized, it cannot be 
    paid.
        The Chairman: Yes. . . .
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the gentleman's point of 
    order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot 
    be used for any other purpose than increased pay costs authorized 
    by or pursuant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is 
    overruled.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1960 
        [H.R. 11666], where a point of order was made against a 
        paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that the lump-
        sum figure therein contained, according to the report, funds 
        for one organization in excess of the authorization. Although 
        the point of order was conceded, the language of the bill 
        specified that appropriations in the paragraph were available 
        only for ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts'' 
        providing for U.S. participation in certain organizations, and, 
        under the precedents, the quoted language would limit the 
        amount which could be used to the amount actually authorized, 
        so that the point of order would not lie.

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

[[Page 5006]]

Authorizations Enacted After Reporting Appropriation Bill

Sec. 2.21 A point of order against an item in a general appropriation 
    bill was overruled when it became apparent that the authorizing 
    legislation had been enacted into law between the time the 
    appropriation bill was reported and the time it was considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 19, 1970,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1971 (H.R. 17619) a point of order was raised against 
certain language in the bill as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 16164, 16165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation

        For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act 
    of October 30, 1965 (16 U.S.C. 757), $2,168,000.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on lines 1 through 3 of page 19 
    as unauthorized for an appropriation.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentlewoman from 
    Washington desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Julia Butler] Hansen of Washington: Yes, I do, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        May I say, relative to the Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries 
    Conservation, the bill was signed by the President of the United 
    States on May 14.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The language in the bill indicates that this is under the 
    provisions of the act of October 30, 1965. As the gentlewoman from 
    Washington points out, the program has recently been reauthorized--
    Public Law 91-249.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Repeal of Prior Authorization

Sec. 2.22 An act providing that notwithstanding any other law, ``no 
    appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
    Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
    hereafter enacted by the Con

[[Page 5007]]

    gress,'' was construed to have voided all previous authorizations 
    for appropriations to that agency; hence an appropriation was held 
    not to be in order since not authorized by law enacted after the 
    repeal.

    On June 29, 1959,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
7978), a point of order was raised against certain provisions of the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Research and Development

            For an additional amount for ``Research and development,'' 
        fiscal year 1959, $18,675,000, to remain available until 
        expended.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point [of] order against 
    the language on page 4, lines 2, 3, and 4, on the ground that there 
    is no authorization in basic law for this appropriation to be made.
        In connection with that, I send a copy of Public Law 86-45 of 
    the 86th Congress to the Chair. I make the point of order on the 
    ground that there is no authorization in basic law for this 
    appropriation to be made. The authorization for this appropriation 
    did exist at one time, but it was repealed by the act of June 15, 
    1959, Public Law 86-45, section 4, which reads as follows:

            Sec. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no 
        appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration unless previously authorized by legislation 
        hereafter enacted by the Congress.

        This law, Mr. Chairman, was approved on June 15, 1959. This 
    language clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that appropriations can 
    be made for items authorized by legislation which is hereafter 
    enacted, meaning after June 15, 1959. Section 4 clearly states that 
    appropriations can be made only for items authorized after June 15, 
    1959, hence all previous authorizations are voided. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa has made a point of order 
    against that portion of the bill appearing in lines 2, 3, and 4, 
    page 4, and has called the attention of the Chair to section 4 of 
    Public Law 86-45. In view of the language cited, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.