[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 7. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5372-5396]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 7. In General


    The rule (7) prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and 
legislation on general appropriation bills is applicable only to 
general appropriation bills. In addition to the precedents in this 
chapter, extensive discussion of bills considered to be or not to be 
``general'' appropriation bills is found in the preceding chapter on 
appropriation bills.(8) Further discussion of the general 
requirement that appropriations be authorized is also to be found in 
that chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXI clause 2. See Sec. 1, supra, for text and discussion of 
        the rule.
 8. Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the law authorizes appropriations only out of a special fund, 
appropriations from the general fund are deemed 
unauthorized.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 35.1, 35.2, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingent Upon Enactment of Authorization

Sec. 7.1 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for projects 
    not yet authorized by law is legislation and not in order.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(10) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9033), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 18179, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              Title V--Peace Corps

                      Funds appropriated to the President

                                  Peace Corps

            For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
        the provisions of the Peace Corps Act, including purchase of 
        not to exceed sixteen passenger motor vehicles for $20,000,000: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 2000 or H.R. 7500, Eighty-seventh 
        Congress, or similar legislation to provide for a Peace Corps.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Title V, which has just been read, has not yet 
    been au

[[Page 5373]]

    thorized and therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: We concede the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana concedes the point 
    of order and the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hiestand).

Sec. 7.2 In a general appropriation bill, a paragraph making an 
    appropriation contingent upon the subsequent enactment of 
    authorizing language is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 3, 1967,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
9481), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 11589, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  Chapter VIII

                             Military Construction

                                 Family Housing

                      homeowners assistance fund, defense

            For the Homeowners Assistance Fund, established pursuant to 
        section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
        Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-754, approved November 
        3, 1966), $5,500,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this paragraph shall be effective only upon 
        enactment into law of S. 1216, Ninetieth Congress, or similar 
        legislation.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point of order asking 
    the Chair to strike chapter 8 of the second supplemental 
    appropriation bill, to be found on page 17, lines 6 through 16 
    thereof, for the reason there has been no authorization of this 
    appropriation and that it is contrary to rule XXI (2) of this body. 
    Consideration of S. 1216 is now before this body's Committee on 
    Rules, it is controversial, it has mixed jurisdictional parentage, 
    and it came out of the Committee on Armed Services with eight or 
    more opposing votes. It can be defeated on the floor.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Florida seek to be heard 
    on this point of order?
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, as the bill states and as the report states, 
    there is a requirement for the enactment of authorizing 
    legislation. The bill which is before the House clearly requires 
    that appropriations for the acquisition of properties must be 
    authorized by a military construction authorization act, and that 
    no moneys in the fund may be used except as may be provided in an 
    appropriation act, and it would clearly protect the Congress and 
    fulfill the requirements of the law.

[[Page 5374]]

        What we are seeking to do is to put into operation an immediate 
    program. If we do not provide funds now for people who need money 
    for losses in their property as a result of base closures, it is 
    going to be some months before it can be done, probably, in the 
    regular appropriation bill.
        Of course, the language is subject to a point of order. We 
    concede that. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, that 
    is the story, but the homeowners will be the ones who suffer 
    unnecessarily.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. As the gentleman 
    from Florida has conceded, the language objected to by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is subject to a point of order in that no 
    authorization has been enacted into law. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 7.3 An item of appropriation providing for an expenditure not 
    previously authorized by law is not in order; and delaying the 
    availability of the appropriation pending enactment of an 
    authorization does not protect the item of appropriation against a 
    point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 
14582), a point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 14455, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        Federal Railroad Administration

               grants to national railroad passenger corporation

            To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as authorized by 
        section 601 of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, as 
        amended, $170,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall be available only upon 
        the enactment into law of authorizing legislation by the 
        Ninety-second Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the $170 million appropriation for Amtrak.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, the authorization has not yet been 
    made. The fact that the authorization passed the House of 
    Representatives would not make the appropriation valid. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the House has 
    passed the authorization bill. It has not been enacted into law. I 
    think the point of order is well taken.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Mahon: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that the chairman of the 
    committee concedes the point of order. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained.

[[Page 5375]]

Authorization Revoked by Law Requiring Subsequent Authorization

Sec. 7.4 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 Congress,'' was construed to have voided 
    all previous authorizations for appropriations to that agency, so 
    that an appropriation for ``research and development'' was held not 
    authorized by law.

    On June 29, 1959,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7978, a supplemental appropriation bill. During the 
reading of the bill for amendment, the Clerk read the following 
paragraph against which a point of order was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 12125, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 105 Cong. Rec. 12130, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        29, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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. . . .

            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.

[[Page 5376]]

 Waiver of Points of Order Against Items ``Not Yet Authorized''

Sec. 7.5 Where the Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a 
    waiver of points of order against unauthorized items in a general 
    appropriation bill but not against legislative language therein, 
    the Member calling up the resolution offered an amendment to 
    reflect that intention.

    On July 21, 1970,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order against said bill for failure to comply with 
        the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a 
    resolution waiving points of order against certain provisions of 
    H.R. 18515, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
    Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1971. . . .
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule--so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to.

Executive Order Not Sufficient Authorization

Sec. 7.6 A Presidential order creating a War Relocation Authority was 
    held not an authorization in law for an appropriation for expenses 
    incurred incident to the establishment, maintenance, and operation 
    of the emergency refugee shelter at Fort Ontario, New York.

[[Page 5377]]

    On Mar. 2, 1945,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2374, a deficiency appropriation bill. During the 
reading of the bill for amendment, a point of order was raised against 
the bracketed language below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, the item is 
    not subject to a point of order. As the committee will recall, the 
    action of the military authorities in moving from the West Coast 
    for supervised segregation all persons of Japanese ancestry, was 
    one of the most mooted questions in the early days of the war. It 
    was done under Executive authority by virtue of Executive Order No. 
    9102, establishing the War Relocation Authority in the Executive 
    office of the President and defining its functions and duties. It 
    was financed as many of the early war activities were financed out 
    of the President's special fund. It is therefore authorized by law. 
    This is tantamount to a reappropriation of funds, and is admissible 
    under the rules. There are no grounds upon which a point of order 
    can be sustained.
        Mr. Dworshak: The gentleman has been referring to the Executive 
    order which created the War Relocation Authority; but this refugee 
    activity ostensibly would be conducted under the Executive order 
    which created the War Refugee Board. I submit that there has been 
    no legislation enacted by Congress which authorizes the 
    appropriation of funds for this specific program.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: As I understand, the gentleman's point 
    of order goes to the item in line 21 on page 13 appropriating 
    $280,477. That is in effect a reappropriation for the War 
    Relocation Authority and is therefore in order.
        Mr. Dworshak: No provision has been made for funds for the 
    operation of the War Refugee Board. I am not questioning the 
    Authority for the appropriation for the War Relocation Authority, 
    but there is no existing authority for the other activity.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: This is really a function of the War 
    Relocation

[[Page 5378]]

    Authority, and we are merely making a reappropriation.

        Mr. Dworshak: There has never been any appropriation made, so 
    it cannot be a reappropriation for the War Refugee Board.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: This is a reappropriation of funds 
    formerly supplied by the President's fund.
        Mr. Dworshak: There has never been any appropriation for that 
    activity.
        The Chairman: (20) May the Chair ask the chairman of 
    the committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], if it is 
    his contention that the Executive order by the President would be 
    law within the meaning of the rule requiring appropriations to be 
    authorized by law?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: In the Federal Register of Friday, 
    March 20, 1942, appears a copy of the Executive order. Its 
    functions are fully outlined there. One of its duties would be the 
    establishment of such a refugee shelter as is provided here in the 
    bill. Money has been provided for the support of the activities of 
    this Authority out of the President's fund. This activity was 
    initiated under competent authority and under authority of law and 
    is work in progress. It is therefore in order under the rules of 
    the House.
        Mr. Dworshak: Mr. Chairman, may I add this point: The chairman 
    of the committee persists in referring to Executive Order No. 9102, 
    which created the War Relocation Authority, while I also direct 
    attention to another Executive order which was issued on January 
    22, 1944, under which the War Refugee Board was created and under 
    which this particular activity has been maintained. There has never 
    been any specific authority in law or any appropriation made 
    heretofore, so it cannot be a reappropriation of funds.
        Section 213 of Public Law 358, making appropriations for the 
    executive offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, 
    requires any agency established by Executive order, having been in 
    existence for more than 1 year, to come to Congress for a regular 
    appropriation. As the War Refugee Board had been created under 
    Executive Order No. 9417 and had utilized money provided by the 
    President from his emergency war fund, it is obvious that no 
    specific authorization has heretofore been considered by Congress 
    for this activity.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        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 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.

[[Page 5379]]

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Idaho.

Sec. 7.7 An Executive order does not constitute sufficient 
    authorization ``by law'' absent proof of its derivation from a 
    statute enacted by Congress authorizing the appropriation; and an 
    appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, established by 
    Executive order, was stricken from a general appropriation bill 
    when the Committee on Appropriations failed to cite statutory 
    authority, other than for funds for personnel, in support of that 
    item.

    On June 15, 1973,(1) the following item in the 
agricultural, environmental and consumer protection appropriations for 
1974 (2) was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
    established by Executive Order 11583 of February 24, 1971, as 
    amended, $1,140,000, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
    3109.

    A point of order was then raised:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language to be found on page 43, 
    beginning with line 11 and running through line 15.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order only because I do not 
    believe the Executive orders should be substituted for 
    authorizations by law.
        The Chairman [James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas]: Does the 
    gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    notwithstanding an earlier ruling, I should like to point out 
    something with respect to the Executive order:

            Amending Executive Order 11583, establishing Office of 
        Consumer Affairs. By virtue of the authority vested in me as 
        President of the United States, Executive Order 11583, page 24, 
        is amended by substituting for section 1 thereof the following:

        If the President of the United States has authority to issue 
    it, the point of order should be overruled. If he does not, it 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        As cited earlier, it is required that any activity for which an 
    appropriation is contained in a general appropriation bill shall be 
    an activity authorized by law. The Chair observes that in the 
    stated provision two authorities are cited.
        One is the Executive Order 11583; the other one is 5 U.S.C. 
    3109. Apparently the authorization cited, 5 U.S.C. 3109, is only 
    for personnel.
        Therefore, the Chair must conclude that the authority cited is 
    Executive Order 11583.
        The Chair, of course, is not knowledgeable as to the authority 
    or lack of

[[Page 5380]]

    authority inherent in the President to issue such an Executive 
    order, but the Chair believes the burden should be upon the 
    committee to cite statutory authorization rather than Executive 
    order, which under the rules does not qualify within the meaning of 
    the word, ``law.''
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for my own information and 
    future study, does that mean that the legislature must come before 
    the Congress and it does not have the presumption of right, and 
    only those who attack it can prove otherwise? Now, if the Chair 
    proves to be right, it means that everything has to be proven verse 
    by verse and chapter by chapter. I would presume from my own study 
    of law and my own interpretation that that which comes here in the 
    regular way would be in order unless proven otherwise. I think the 
    Chair has shifted the burden onto the legislative body, as between 
    the three branches of government, as it relates to that branch 
    which claims the right, and I think as long as that is claimed and 
    exercised, the burden would be on the antagonist or the gentleman 
    who raised the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] may 
    be entirely right in his assumption that the President, in issuing 
    Executive Order 11583, was doing so pursuant to congressional 
    enactment.
        The Chair, lacking knowledge of the source of that authority, 
    believes that the history of rulings from this Chair is that it has 
    been consistently held that law, within the meaning of rule XXI, 
    embraces statutory law enacted by Congress and does not cover 
    Executive orders issued by the executive branch of Government.
        For example, the Chair refers to a ruling made by Chairman 
    Sparkman on July 5, 1945, in which the Chair declared:

            An Executive order does not meet the requirement that 
        appropriations must be authorized by law.

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I have gone far afield in my 
    discussion with my friend, the gentleman in the Chair, but do I 
    understand that whatever commission may exist for various other 
    actions taken by the executive branch, this cannot be advanced by 
    the Committee on Appropriations, and is that ruling a complete 
    ruling to exclude from the appropriation process anything that is 
    created by Executive order?
        Mr. Chairman, I have some other bills coming up. I have never 
    before heard of such an action.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot and would not rule on that 
    question, because it involves a hypothetical situation in the 
    future; nor can the Chair predict with certainty what some future 
    occupant of the Chair might rule.
        The Chair simply declares that under precedents heretofore 
    cited, executive orders do not meet the test of law, as required in 
    the rules, for the citation of an authorization for an 
    appropriation, and for that reason the Chair sustains the point of 
    order in the present case.

Sec. 7.8 Pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2, and 36 USC Sec. 673, 
    commissions and councils must have been established by law--and not 
    merely by Executive order--prior to the

[[Page 5381]]

    expenditure of federal funds therefor. A lump sum amount for the 
    Civil Service Commission contained in a general appropriation bill 
    was conceded to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, where it was 
    shown that a portion of that amount was intended to fund the 
    President's Commission on Personnel Interchange--a commission 
    established solely by Executive order and not created by law.

    On June 25, 1974,(3) during consideration of the 
Departments of the Treasury, Postal Service, and Executive Office 
appropriations for fiscal 1975,(4) a point of order was made 
against the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 21036, 21037, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 15544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses, including services as authorized by 5 
    U.S.C. 3109; medical examinations performed for veterans by private 
    physicians on a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the 
    District of Columbia; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to 
    exceed $2,500 [for official reception and representation expenses;] 
    and advances or reimbursements to applicable funds of the 
    Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for expenses 
    incurred under Executive Order 10422 of January 9, 1953, as 
    amended; ($90,000,000 together with not to exceed $18,698,000 for 
    current fiscal year administrative expenses for the retirement and 
    insurance programs to be transferred from the appropriate trust 
    funds of the Commission in amounts determined by the Commission 
    without regard to other statutes: Provided, That the provisions of 
    this appropriation shall not affect the authority to use applicable 
    trust funds for administrative expenses of effecting statutory 
    annuity adjustments.) No part of the appropriation herein made to 
    the Civil Service Commission shall be available for the salaries 
    and expenses of the Legal Examining Unit of the Commission, 
    established pursuant to Executive Order 9358 of July 1, 1943, or 
    any successor unit of like purpose.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the language beginning at line 12 on page 12 of this 
    bill with the figures ``$90,000,000'' through line 20 ending in the 
    word ``adjustments.'' . . . Mr. Chairman, the basis for this point 
    of order is the requirement of House rule XXI clause 2, which 
    provides that:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for 
        an expenditure not previously authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is in fact no 
    authorization for the President's Commission on Personnel 
    Interchange for which $353,000 is herein requested. It was created 
    solely by Executive Order 11451 on January 19, 1969.
        This House rule is supported in this regard by title 36 of the 
    United States

[[Page 5382]]

    Code, section 673, which also indicates that no funds should be 
    expended by this body without authorization. The full section of 
    the law reads as follows:

                             Title 36, Section 673

            No part of the public monies, or of any appropriation made 
        by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or 
        expenses of any commission, council or other similar body, or 
        any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any 
        work or the results of any work or action of commission, 
        council, board, or similar body, unless the creation of the 
        same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall 
        there be employed any detail hereafter or heretofore made or 
        otherwise personal services from any Executive Department or 
        other Government establishment in connection with any such 
        commission, council, board, or similar body.

        Mr. Chairman, I have a particular concern in regard to a 
    program whose appropriation is contained within the language of 
    lines 12 through 20 of page 12 of this bill. The program is the 
    President's Commission on Personnel Interchange, created solely by 
    Executive Order 11451. There has never been an authorization 
    hearing concerning its operation, since its creation at the 
    beginning of 1969.
        A preliminary examination during the past several months by my 
    office and the GAO has revealed a series of potential conflicts of 
    interest. These problems are so serious that the GAO has already 
    referred two cases involving Presidential interchange personnel to 
    the Justice Department for potential criminal conflicts-of-interest 
    violations.
        Mr. Chairman, this point of order does not necessarily mean the 
    end of this program. The Congress may and should consider it 
    through the regular authorization process. By following normal 
    procedures, the Congress may be able to write in safeguards 
    preventing future conflict-of-interest problems.

        In addition, one must remember that the program's cost of 
    $353,000 as outlined in one brief sentence in the House 
    subcommittee hearing, is only one-tenth of the actual cost of this 
    program since all salaries, travel, moving expenses, and other 
    incidental costs are paid fully by the agency which hires for 1 
    year an interchange candidate.
        I have grave reservations concerning the continuation of this 
    program at all, since I believe that agencies which regulate 
    certain industries will surely have problems with conflict of 
    interest when they hire key industry personnel from the very 
    industries which they are supposed to regulate. I object to 
    personnel from oil companies being hired by FEO and predecessor 
    agencies. I object when a person from the pesticides division from 
    a major company ends up at the pesticide control division of EPA; I 
    object when an auditor from a large accounting firm works for the 
    chief auditor of the SEC--and the SEC has filed allegation of fraud 
    against the firm from which the interchange candidate works for.
        The list of obvious potential conflicts of interest is endless. 
    Who among us knows how many real conflicts have existed because of 
    the manner in which this program has proceeded. It seems to me that 
    the Congress must be very alert to prevent potential conflicts of 
    interest. We must not participate in the institutionalization of 
    potential

[[Page 5383]]

    conflict-of-interest situations because of programs just like the 
    Presidential interchange program.
        As the GAO recently said in its report to me on conflicts of 
    interest in this program:

            In our view, the more important question raised by FEO's 
        use of presidential executive interchange program personnel 
        with oil and related industry backgrounds concerns the judgment 
        exercised in placing executives on a year's leave of absence 
        from private industry in positions in an agency exercising a 
        regulatory-type responsibility over the activities of the very 
        company to which the individual involved will return at the 
        completion of his year's assignment. It was this action which 
        created potential conflict of interest situations. At your 
        request, we now are making a broad review of the Presidential 
        Executive Interchange program.

        It took us years to begin to root out this very kind of 
    conflict system at the Department of Defense and here we are, a 
    party to its institutionalization.
        In any event, I feel strongly that the appropriation of funds 
    for this program would be contrary to both the statute and House 
    rule I have cited.
        I ask the Chair to rule.
        The Chairman [B. F. Sisk, of California]: Does the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) concedes 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Reorganization Plan as Authorization

Sec. 7.9 While an Executive order creating a federal office cannot, 
    standing alone, be considered authority in law for appropriations 
    for that office, a reorganization plan from which that office 
    derives may be cited by the Committee on Appropriations to support 
    such an appropriation. A reorganization plan submitted by the 
    President pursuant to 5 USC Sec. 906 has the status of statutory 
    law when it becomes effective and is sufficient authority to 
    support an appropriation under Rule XXI clause 2.

    On June 21, 1974,(5) the agricultural, environmental and 
consumer affairs appropriations for fiscal 1975(6) were 
under consideration. A point of order was made against an item in the 
bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 20596, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. 6. H.R. 15472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
    including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,365,000.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of

[[Page 5384]]

    order pertaining to title IV on page 45, lines 9 through 14, under 
    the title ``Consumer Programs, Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare, Office of Consumer Affairs'' on the ground that it 
    violates rule XXI, clause 2, in that there is no existing statutory 
    authority for this office, and I cite as authority the fact that 
    last year this same point of order was made and the Chair ruled 
    that there was no existing authority.
        The Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations raised this 
    question during their hearing, and a memorandum was submitted from 
    the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which in effect 
    cited several different statutes, none of which pertained to an 
    Office of Consumer Affairs. I, therefore, insist upon this point of 
    order and ask that this language be stricken.
        The Chairman [Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida]: Does the gentleman 
    from Mississippi wish to be heard?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do 
    wish to be heard. It is pointed out on page 967 of the hearings 
    that we had submitted the report from the Department of HEW, dated 
    March 21, 1974, in which they cite:

            Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 provides in pertinent 
        part: ``In the interest of economy and efficiency the Secretary 
        may from time to time establish central . . . services and 
        activities common to the several agencies of the Department . . 
        .'' [section 7].

        Later this report says:

            The Office of Consumer Affairs, they include policy 
        guidance responsibility respecting the relationship of all of 
        the statutes of the Department to the consumer interest.

        So this agency is in line with the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
    1953 which was approved and authorized by the Congress, and for 
    that reason it is within the authorization of the law.
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Mississippi give us the 
    statutory citation for this office?
        Mr. Whitten: It is Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard in connection with the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the 
    Appropriations Committee only has authority, and I would say my 
    good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, is one of the most 
    wise and able Members of this body and he is well aware of the fact 
    that the reorganization plans are not statutory in effect and do 
    not confer the authority on the executive branch to procure and 
    expend appropriated funds. They do not constitute an authorization 
    and, therefore, even though there is a reorganization plan in being 
    it does not constitute the basis upon which the committee may 
    predicate appropriations.
        The Chairman: Last year when this same point was raised, the 
    authority that was cited was an Executive order. The Chair will 
    state that a reorganization plan-which was not cited as authority 
    on June 15, 1973 - once it has become effective, has the effect of 
    law and of statute and, therefore, the point of order would have to 
    be overruled.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will permit me further, 
    the gen

[[Page 5385]]

    tleman does not cite the Reorganization Act. He recites a 
    reorganization plan which is very different from a Reorganization 
    Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that if the reorganization 
    plan has become effective, if it was not rejected by the Congress 
    within the time provided, it has the effect of a statute.
        Mr. Dingell: It does not constitute statutory authority.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair 
    has examined the law and is citing from title V, United States 
    Code, section 906, which prescribes the procedure by which a 
    reorganization plan does become effective. It is clear to the Chair 
    that Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 has the effect of law, and 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: The legal position of the Office of Consumer 
    Affairs has not been the subject, as I understand it, or any change 
    in status so far as an Executive order issued in the interim since 
    the last ruling of the Chair in June 1973, and no statutory 
    authority has occurred to authorize its existence; so how can this 
    office now be authorized?
        The Chairman: The point is that last year the burden was on the 
    Committee on Appropriations. No statutory provision was cited. This 
    year they have cited authority other than an Executive order.
        The Chair has examined the pertinent statutes and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, let me say 
    that I handled the Reorganization Act on the floor that puts the 
    different agencies that were related to environmental duties 
    together into the Environmental Protection Agency. We did not 
    change the statutes that created the different programs, nor did we 
    change committee jurisdictions over the different programs. We left 
    them exactly like they were and are and, therefore, the Chair in my 
    opinion has ruled rightly that the statutes that pertain to the 
    different programs from the Government committees, still exist. 
    Therefore, they have the right to continue to authorize those 
    programs and, of course, the Committee on Appropriations can group 
    their work on appropriations in any way they wish, as was proved by 
    their concentration of authorized energy programs into their 
    centralized consideration. So I think the Chair has ruled rightly.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ruling referred to by Mr. Bauman 
occurred on June 15, 1973.(7) In that instance, the Chair 
(8) held that an Executive order does not constitute 
sufficient authorization ``by law'' in the absence of proof of its 
derivation from a statute enacted by Congress authorizing the 
appropriation. In accordance with the principle that the burden of 
proving that an item contained in

[[Page 5386]]

a general appropriation bill is authorized by law is upon the Committee 
on Appropriations, which must cite statutory authority for the 
appropriation, an appropriation for the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
established by Executive order, was stricken from a general 
appropriation bill when the Appropriations Committee failed to cite 
statutory authority, other than for funds for personnel, in support of 
that item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 19855, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lump-sum Appropriation Only for Authorized Purposes

Sec. 7.10 To a bill providing a lump-sum appropriation for expenses 
    necessary for collection and study of information pertaining to 
    river and harbor projects, a substitute amendment increasing the 
    lump-sum appropriation in order to provide funds for an additional 
    survey was held to be in order.

    On June 18, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. When the paragraph dealing with ``general 
investigations'' was read, an amendment and a substitute therefor were 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           General Investigations

        For expenses necessary for the collection and study of basic 
    information pertaining to river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects, and when authorized by law, 
    preliminary examinations, surveys and studies (including 
    cooperative beach erosion studies as authorized in Public Law No. 
    520, 71st Cong., approved July 3, 1930, as amended and 
    supplemented), of projects prior to authorization for construction, 
    to remain available until expended, $8,473,500: Provided, That, no 
    part of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for the survey 
    of Carter Lake, Iowa, until it is authorized.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon. On page 3, line 19, strike 
        out ``$8,473,500'' and insert ``$8,613,500.''. . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this language 
    which indicates which projects it is for or whether or not they are 
    authorized by law. It seems to me we ought to have that before the 
    item is reached for a vote so a point of order should be made, if 
    they are not authorized.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri has been recognized 
    and it is presumed that the gentleman will make his explanation in 
    support of his amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .

[[Page 5387]]

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is doubtless aware, 
    this is an item from a supplemental budget just received from the 
    Bureau of the Budget. It puts into the bill $140,000 under Public 
    Law 303. That was approved, as you will recall, last September. It 
    gives the title to certain land to the Territory of Alaska, and 
    provides that the Territory may dispose of it; the Territory cannot 
    dispose of the land until certain matters have been established as 
    to the seaward limit of the land. This merely permits the 
    Government engineers to establish the seaward limit of the lands, 
    and thereby makes it possible for the Territory of Alaska to go 
    ahead with the transfer of these tracts.
        With respect to the money in this paragraph it is all for 
    authorized surveys with the single exception of this Carter Lake in 
    Iowa. Of course, if the gentleman wants to insist on the point of 
    order, we can let it go out and offer it later without that 
    provision.
        Mr. Taber: It is subject to a point of order?
        Mr. Cannon: Only the language, ``to remain available until 
    expended.'' Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Taber: No; not for that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York withdraw his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hale as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Cannon: On page 3, line 19, strike out 
        ``$8,473,500'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,498,400.''

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hale] is recognized 
    on his amendment.
        Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for the purpose 
    of including in the bill $25,000 for a study of the situation in 
    Portland Harbor. The purpose of the study would be to determine the 
    advisability of deepening the harbor channel and anchorage to 45 
    feet to allow the accommodation of deep-draft tankers. The study 
    has been approved by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the 
    House Public Works Committee. It was authorized too late, however, 
    to be included in the fiscal 1959 budget.
        I would like to remind you that the Committee on Appropriations 
    has added 26 similar unbudgeted surveys to the 1959 public works 
    appropriation bill. One of them, I am informed, has not yet been 
    authorized. I do not know the criteria used by the committee in 
    selecting these 26 particular unbudgeted surveys. I am sure the 
    studies are completely justified. But I do not understand why the 
    authorized Portland Harbor study was not also included. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment because it provides for items that are not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maine is recognized to respond 
    to the point of order that the gentleman from New York has made.
        Mr. Hale: My understanding is that the study was approved by 
    the Corps

[[Page 5388]]

    of Engineers and authorized by the House Committee on Public Works.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman cite the statute which 
    authorizes the appropriation?
        Mr. Hale: I cannot do that at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to argue the point of order, if the Chair would withhold his 
    ruling.
        The Chairman: The Chair will withhold his ruling.
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, the general provisions 
    contained in this appropriation bill have to do with projects that 
    are to be surveyed by the Corps of Engineers. Under the Flood 
    Control Acts of 1928 and 1944 there is general authority for the 
    Corps of Engineers to carry out studies of flood control, 
    navigation, and other water related projects for which there is 
    authority under existing law. Now, the gentleman from Maine offers 
    an amendment to the amendment that authorizes the increase of 
    $8,475,000 by some $25,000. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maine only identifies the project for which there is an 
    increased authorization. Now, I submit to the Chair that there is 
    no need for identity of the project contained in the amendment. 
    Now, of the $8 million already contained in this bill, it 
    authorizes numerous works to be surveyed by the Corps of Engineers, 
    some of which are not authorized by law and the identity of which 
    would have to be brought forward by the Committee on 
    Appropriations. But, that is a principle that we do not recognize 
    nor have we insisted upon in the past.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit further, notwithstanding the fact that 
    the amendment goes to the identity of the project already contained 
    in law, as I have pointed out to the Chair, it is an authorized 
    project for survey heretofore enacted by the House Public Works 
    Committee.
        The Chairman: I wonder if the gentleman from Alabama could cite 
    the specific authorization for the funds that the gentleman from 
    Maine seeks to include?
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: I will say to the Chair that my chief 
    argument was made under general authorization which empowers the 
    Corps of Engineers to carry out surveys on general appropriations 
    for survey purposes. I did not rest my argument particularly upon 
    the amendment identifying the Portland Harbor project, because that 
    is in the inherent authority contained in existing law for the 
    Corps of Engineers to execute surveys of projects without those 
    projects being identified in an appropriation bill. If the point of 
    order is sustained, then a point of order would lie against the 
    entire amount, because it fails to identify the project to be 
    surveyed, as to whether or not those projects have been authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman from Maine has based his 
    argument, as the Chair understood it, on the bill which passed the 
    House today and which has not been acted upon by the other body or 
    signed by the President. . . .
        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order

[[Page 5389]]

    against the gentleman's amendment should not lie. Apparently the 
    gentleman from New York made his point of order on the basis that 
    his thought was that this survey was authorized in the bill which 
    the House passed an hour or so ago. That survey was not included in 
    that bill. The survey, as pointed out by the gentleman from Iowa 
    [Mr. Jensen] was authorized under a resolution approved by the 
    House Committee on Public Works something over a year ago. Under 
    the law, the approval by the Committee on Public Works of a study 
    previously authorized under the law some years before is fully 
    entitled to appropriation if the Congress decides to appropriate 
    the money.
        The Chairman: The reasoning of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Smith] impressed the Chair. The Chair was prepared to rule on 
    the basis of the statement made by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. 
    Hale] that he was relying upon the action taken by the House 
    earlier this afternoon, which obviously was not an authorization in 
    light of the fact that that is an action by this body, but the 
    other body has not acted and the President has not signed it. But 
    the argument advanced by the gentleman from Mississippi impresses 
    the Chair and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rulings in this section and the three 
sections immediately following should be distinguished from rulings, as 
in Sec. 47.4, infra, to the effect that an appropriation will not be 
permitted which is conditioned on a future authorization. The rulings 
in Sec. Sec. 7.11-7.13, infra, establish that, where lump sums are 
involved, language which limits use of an appropriation to projects 
``authorized by law'' or which permits expenditures ``within the limits 
of the amount now or hereafter authorized to be appropriated,'' is 
proper. The Chair in such cases is guided in his ruling by the express 
language of the bill, and not, for example, by indications in the 
committee report that certain unauthorized projects may be contemplated 
by the bill's provisions. The project, to be within the purview of the 
language in question, must have been authorized by law already enacted 
prior to the bill. Once the project itself has been authorized, 
Congress can change the limits of expenditure, thereby affecting 
subsequent expenditures pursuant to the provisions of the 
appropriation. It should be noted that this result is not an extension 
of the rule permitting appropriations, without authorization, for 
``works in progress,'' because the language under consideration in Sec. 
7.11-7.13, infra, relates specifically to expenditures ``authorized in 
law.''

Sec. 7.11 A point of order was held not to lie against an amendment 
    proposing to increase a lump-sum appro

[[Page 5390]]

    priation for river and harbor projects where language in the bill 
    limited use of the lump-sum appropriation to ``projects authorized 
    by law.''

    On June 19, 1958,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 11766, 11767, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
            See the note in Sec. 7.10, supra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: On 
    page 4, line 8, after ``expended'', strike out '$577,085,500' and 
    insert ``$578,455,500.''. . .
        Mr. (John) Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It appears to be for three 
    projects which have not been authorized by law although a bill did 
    pass the House. Frankly, I do not like the situation where I am 
    obliged to make this point of order, but I feel that I would not be 
    conscientious in the performance of my duty if I did not do so.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Becker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding in trying to 
    evaluate the various points of order in the last 2 days is that it 
    is possible to increase the sum, that is, it is possible to 
    increase the total sum of the appropriation if I do not include any 
    specific authorization. I have not offered any authorization here 
    or legislation on this bill. I am merely increasing the amount and 
    the total sum of the appropriation in order that there will be a 
    sum of money and in order that these three projects can be 
    initiated. I hope the Chairman will overrule the point of order. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Becker] offers 
    an amendment, on page 4, line 8, to which the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber] raises a point of order.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    to review the ruling of the Chair on yesterday with respect to the 
    language in the bill to which these figures on line 8, page 4, 
    apply. The Chair will point out, as did the Chair on yesterday, 
    that the language to which these figures apply is very specific in 
    that the moneys are to be spent on projects authorized by law. So 
    it would appear to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Becker] raising the amount of the 
    appropriation would be in order.

        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec.  7.12 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

[[Page 5391]]

    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,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12326. At one point the Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized 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 $1,400,000 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. . . .
        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. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It so happens that almost an identical point of order to an 
    identical paragraph was raised on June 18, 1958,(15) 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 phrase ``authorized 
    by law,'' and none of the appropriation can be expended unless 
    authorized by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the ruling at Sec. 7.10, supra. For further discussion, see the 
        Parliamentarian's Note in Sec. 7.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order and sustains the ruling 
    made on June 18, 1958.

Sec. 7.13 Where a lump-sum appropriation is prefaced by

[[Page 5392]]

    language limiting expenditure thereof to projects ``authorized by 
    or pursuant to law,'' a point of order against the total figure, 
    based on a general allegation that a portion thereof may be 
    unauthorized, will not lie.

    On May 21, 1969,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal 
1969 (H.R. 11400), Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order 
against a provision in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 13267, 13268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        discussion, see the Parliamentarian's Note at Sec. 7.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          House of Representatives

                          compensation of members

        Compensation of Members, $1,975,- 000;

                     salaries, officers, and employees

        ``Office of the Speaker'', $4,015; . . .
        Mr. Gross: 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: (17) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 Chairman: Will the gentleman from Texas yield for a 
    clarifying question on the part of the Chair? As the Chair reads 
    this language it says, ``for increased pay costs authorized by or 
    pursuant to law.'' If the Chair understands language, this refers 
    to a cost already authorized by and pursuant to law that is now in 
    existence. Is that true?
        Mr. Mahon: The Chair is correct. . . .
        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

[[Page 5393]]

    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: Does the gentleman from Texas state to the Chair 
    that of the amount of $1,975,000 there is $19,835 that is not 
    authorized?
        Mr. Mahon: $19,835.
        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.

Appropriations Not Exceeding Authorized Limit

Sec. 7.14 Where a statute authorizes the acquisition of land and 
    construction of buildings within a lump-sum limitation on cost, 
    subsequent appropriations for the construction of buildings under 
    such authorization may not cumulatively exceed the limit of cost 
    fixed in the authorizing act.

    On Jan. 20 and 23, 1939,(18) the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 2868, a deficiency appropriation bill. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 592, 592, 641-643, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Treasury Department

                procurement division, public building branch

        Bureau of the Census Building, Department of Commerce, 
    Washington, D.C.: For the acquisition of the necessary land and the 
    construction of a building for the Bureau of the Census of the 
    Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Public Buildings 
    Act approved May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 630), as amended, including the 
    extension of steam and water mains, removal or diversion of such 
    sewers and utilities as may be necessary, and for administrative 
    expenses in connection therewith, $3,500,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph just read on the ground it is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When this point of order was raised on Friday last, the Chair 
    was in some doubt as to whether the appropriation in the pending 
    paragraph was authorized under existing law. The citation to the 
    act of May 25, 1926, contained in the paragraph, seemed to place a 
    limitation upon the amount of money that could be appropriated for 
    the construc

[[Page 5394]]

    tion of buildings within the District of Columbia. Since last 
    Friday the Chair has had an opportunity of looking into the laws 
    authorizing construction within the District of Columbia. The Chair 
    has found that the act of May 25, 1926, has been amended on two 
    specific occasions--first by the act of January 13, 1928 (45 Stat. 
    52), and, second, by the act of March 31, 1930 (46 Stat. 136). 
    These amendatory acts have increased the authorization for the 
    District of Columbia to $150,000,000 for the construction of 
    buildings and $40,000,000 for the acquisition of lands for such 
    buildings.
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Woodrum] has submitted for the 
    inspection of the Chair a letter addressed to him over the 
    signature of the Director of Procurement of the Treasury 
    Department. The Chair finds in that communication--and of course, 
    the Chair must rely upon the statement of an officer of the 
    Government over his signature--that of the $150,000,000 authorized 
    by construction in the District of Columbia $142,773,092.08 has 
    already been authorized, thus leaving of the original authorization 
    a sum of $7,226,908 for future appropriations. Of the $40,000,000 
    authorized for the acquisition of land there remains unallocated 
    and unappropriated the sum of $11,320,000. It is manifest, 
    therefore, that under the acts heretofore referred to by the Chair 
    there is sufficient authorization within the limit of cost set in 
    those acts for an appropriation of $3,500,000 for the construction 
    of a Census Building. The Chair desires also to point out that the 
    Director of Procurement in his letter to Mr. Woodrum specifically 
    states that the erection of the new Census Building is within the 
    area defined in the authorization acts.
        The question has also been raised as to whether the 
    construction of public buildings in the District of Columbia under 
    allotments by the Public Works Administration should be chargeable 
    against a limitation of $150,000,000 set by the Public Buildings 
    Act of 1926, as amended. The Chair has examined carefully title 2 
    of the National Industrial Recovery Act, section 12 of the 
    Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, and section 201 of the 
    Public Works Administration Extension Act of 1937. These acts 
    contained no reference to the Public Buildings Act of May 25, 1926, 
    as amended, and did not otherwise limit the amount expendable for 
    projects in the District of Columbia as authorized by the Public 
    Buildings Act. It seems to the Chair, therefore, that the moneys 
    used under the Public Works Administration for the construction of 
    buildings in the District of Columbia should not be chargeable to 
    the total amount authorized for projects in the District of 
    Columbia under the Public Buildings Act, as amended. The Chair is 
    fortified in this opinion by the fact that the Director of 
    Procurement of the Treasury Department has placed a like 
    construction upon this proposition.

        For these reasons the Chair is of the opinion that the 
    appropriation herein provided is within the authorization set by 
    Congress, and, therefore, conforms with the rules of the House. The 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Incidental Expenses to Authorized Functions of Government

Sec. 7.15 An amendment proposing appropriations for in

[[Page 5395]]

    cidental expenses which contribute to the main purpose of carrying 
    out the functions of the department for which funds are being 
    provided in the bill is generally held to be authorized by law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Page 
    72, beginning with line 12, insert the following:
        ``Administrative 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, $20,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other 
    communication service, $5,000 for photographing and making 
    photographic prints, $41,250 for personal services, and $7,500 for 
    other expenses in the field legal offices; 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; purchase of ice; 
    purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees; maintenance 
    and operation of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger 
    vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for purchase and exchange of horse-
    drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; packing, 
    crating, and transportation (including drayage) of personal effects 
    of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to 
    be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; payment of damages 
    caused to the owners of lands or other private property of any kind 
    by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or 
    employees, in the survey, construction, operation, or maintenance 
    of irrigation works, payment for officials telephone service in the 
    field hereafter incurred in case of official telephones installed 
    in private houses when authorized under regulations established by 
    the Secretary of the Interior; not to exceed $1,000 for expenses, 
    except membership fees, of attendance, when authorized by the 
    Secretary, upon meetings of technical and professional societies 
    required in connection with official work of the Bureau; payment of 
    rewards, when specifically authorized by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, for information leading to the apprehension and 
    conviction of persons found guilty of the theft, damage, or 
    destruction of public property. . . .''
        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

[[Page 5396]]

    and in line 22, provision for examination of estimates for 
    appropriations in 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: (1) 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 supplementary 
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Language of Limitation as Constituting New Authority

Sec. 7.16 Language in an appropriation bill providing that ``not to 
    exceed $2,500 of the funds available . . . for salaries and 
    expenses . . . shall be available for . . . entertainment when 
    authorized by the Secretary,'' was held to be legislation and not 
    in order.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 6287), a point of order 
was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 5040, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 208. Not to exceed $2,500 of the funds available to 
        the Department for salaries and expenses and not otherwise 
        available for entertainment of officials of other countries or 
        officials of international organizations shall be available for 
        such entertainment when authorized by the Secretary.

        Mr. [Edgar W.] Hiestand [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman makes his point of 
    order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hiestand: Section 208, lines 5 to 9, inclusive.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to 
    comment on this point of order?
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I must 
    concede the point of order. The purpose of this paragraph is to 
    entertain some of these foreign doctors and scientists who come 
    over here, to reciprocate the entertainment that our people receive 
    when they go over there. If the gentleman wants to strike it out, 
    that is his privilege.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Hiestand: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 5397]]