[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 19. Public Works]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5554-5570]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 19. Public Works

Public Buildings Not Approved by Public Works Committee

Sec. 19.1 Language in a general appropriation bill providing an 
    additional amount for the construction of public buildings not yet 
    authorized pursuant to law was held not to be in order.

    On June 7, 1961,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7445), a point of order was raised, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9678, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 19 beginning with line 9 and run

[[Page 5555]]

    ning through line 16, reading as follows:

                 Sites and Expenses, Public Buildings Projects

            For an additional amount for expenses necessary in 
        connection with the construction of public buildings projects 
        not otherwise provided for, as specified under this head in the 
        Independent Offices Appropriation Acts of 1959, 1960 and 1961, 
        including preliminary planning of public buildings projects by 
        contract or otherwise, $25,000,000, to remain available until 
        expended.

        I base the point of order on the ground that the appropriation 
    herein called for is not justified, is not authorized; and I 
    respectfully call the attention of the Chair to the language in the 
    report on page 10 under the title ``Sites and expenses, public 
    buildings projects.''

            This amount is needed for financing the site and expense 
        costs of projects that are now pending or will be submitted to 
        the Public Works Committees this year.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is good; it has not been authorized. But is it needed. They 
    testified to that effect. It has not been authorized, however, and 
    on that basis it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 19.2 Appropriations for certain federal office buildings in the 
    District of Columbia were ruled out as unauthorized where not 
    approved by the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate as 
    required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959 [73 Stat. 479].

    On Apr. 19, 1960,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11776, a bill making appropriations for sundry 
independent executive bureaus. At one point the Clerk read as follows, 
and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 8230, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Construction, Public Buildings Projects

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
    construct public buildings projects and alter public buildings by 
    extension or conversion where the estimated cost for a project is 
    in excess of $200,000 pursuant to the Public Buildings Act of 1959 
    (73 Stat. 479), including equipment for such buildings, 
    $144,836,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
    the foregoing amount shall be available for public buildings 
    projects at locations and at maximum construction improvement costs 
    (excluding funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
        Post office and Federal office building, Camden, Arkansas, 
    $633,250; . . .
        Federal Office Building Numbered Nine, District of Columbia, 
    $20,031,100;
        Federal Office Building Numbered Ten, District of Columbia, 
    $38,326,500; and

[[Page 5556]]

        United States Court of Claims and Court of Customs and Patent 
    Appeals building, $6,375,000: Provided further, That the foregoing 
    limits of costs may be exceeded to the extent that savings are 
    effected in other projects, but by not to exceed 5 per centum.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language beginning with line 9 on page 16 of the 
    bill and running through line 14 to and including the 
    ``$6,375,000'' that it is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, there is no 
    question about it. The point of order is good.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office Construction

Sec. 19.3 To an appropriation bill providing funds for the Post Office 
    Department and transfer of not to exceed a certain sum to the 
    General Services Administration for repair, preservation, 
    improvement and equipment of federally owned property used for 
    postal purposes, an amendment providing funds for construction of a 
    post office annex, approved under the Lease-Purchase Act, but for 
    which there had been no legislation authorizing appropriations, was 
    held to be unauthorized.

    On Mar. 4, 1958, (17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11085, a bill making appropriations for the U.S. 
Treasury and the Post Office. During consideration, a point of order 
was sustained against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 3420, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 204. Not exceeding $22 million of appropriations in this 
    title shall be available for payment to the General Services 
    Administration of such additional sums as may be necessary for the 
    repair, alteration, preservation, renovation, improvement, and 
    equipment of federally owned property used for postal purposes, of 
    which not to exceed $20 million shall be available for improving 
    lighting, color, and ventilation for the specialized conditions in 
    space occupied for postal purposes.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Page 14, after 
        line 6, add:
            ``Sec. 205. There is appropriated the sum of $8,209,000 for 
        the construction of a terminal annex at Denver, Colo.''

        Mr. [J. Vaughan] Gary [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Colorado 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Brooks Hays (Ark.).

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

[[Page 5557]]

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Yes. I contend that the amendment is in 
    order as provided by Public Law 519 dated July 22, 1954, which is 
    commonly referred to as the lease-purchase law. . . .
        Mr. Gary: Mr. Chairman, in the first place, the law cited by 
    the gentleman from Colorado expired on June 30 last year. That is 
    the lease-purchase law. In the second place, the lease-purchase law 
    did not authorize any appropriations whatever. It merely authorized 
    the construction of projects under a lease-purchase contract. In 
    the third place, even if there were an authorization of 
    construction, that comes under General Services Administration and 
    the General Services Administration appropriation is not before 
    this committee. We are considering the appropriation for the Post 
    Office Department. There is absolutely no authorization whatever 
    for the project in question. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair is grateful to both the gentleman from Colorado and 
    the gentleman from Virginia for their presentation. The Chair 
    thinks reference to the legislation referred to by the gentleman 
    from Colorado would develop the fact that the lease-purchase 
    procedure is a distinctive type of construction procedure that does 
    not yield to ordinary appropriation treatment. Consequently, the 
    argument advanced by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Gary] appeals 
    to the Chair. For the reason that no prior legislation authorizing 
    this appropriation has been enacted by the Congress, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Airport Services

Sec. 19.4 An appropriation for necessary advisory services to state and 
    other public and private agencies with regard to construction and 
    operation of airports and landing areas was held to be authorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1945, (19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2603, an appropriation bill for the Federal Loan 
Agency and the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the 
Judiciary. A point of order was overruled against the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Airport advisory service: For necessary expenses in furnishing 
    advisory services to State and other public and private agencies in 
    connection with the construction and operation of airports and 
    landing areas, including personal services in the District of 
    Columbia and elsewhere, and the operation, repair, and maintenance 
    of passenger automobiles, $300,000.
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the words ``and private agencies'' on lines 6 and 7, 
    page 60, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and is not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    authorized under the provisions of Forty-ninth United States Code, 
    section 451, under authority to foster and promote the development 
    of aviation. . . .

[[Page 5558]]

        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Michigan, the 
    chairman of the subcommittee, called to the attention of the Chair 
    certain language which the Chair desires to read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Administrator of Civil Aeronautics is empowered and 
        directed to encourage and foster the development of civil 
        aeronautics and air commerce in the United States and abroad, 
        encourage the establishment of civil airways, landing areas, 
        and other air navigation facilities. The Administrator shall 
        cooperate with the Board in the administration and enforcement 
        of this chapter.

        It seems to the Chair that the language referred to is at least 
    broad enough to authorize the appropriation objected to by the 
    gentleman from Kansas.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Alaskan Highway

Sec. 19.5 An appropriation for construction of a connecting highway 
    between the United States and Alaska was unauthorized by law and 
    not a continuation of a public work in progress.

    On Mar. 10, 1942, (1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation. 
At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2223, 2224, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 4, after 
    line 10, insert ``Alaskan Highway: For prosecuting the construction 
    of a connecting highway from the States to and into Alaska, 
    $5,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: In the first place, I 
    doubt that it requires an authorization for the Corps of Engineers 
    to carry on this work. The paragraph immediately preceding this was 
    a paragraph dealing with the Signal Corps, for which we made an 
    appropriation to carry on the Alaska Communications System.
        Even if this project were one which required authorization by 
    law the rules of the House provide that where a project is under 
    construction and an appropriation is made for continuing 
    construction, the appropriation is in order and is not subject to a 
    point of order.
        I call the Chair's attention to an Associated Press dispatch 
    that appeared throughout the country in the papers of March 7, in 
    which this statement was made:

            An advance crew of American engineers is at Dawson Creek, 
        and dozens of freight cars carrying construction equipment are 
        expected to pass through Alberta in the next few weeks. . . .

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The mere fact that press reports show that certain groups are 
    in Alaska

[[Page 5559]]

    does not constitute in the mind of the Chair that there is really a 
    working performance going on in this project at all.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Appropriation Language Limiting Expenditures to Authorized Projects

Sec. 19.6 A point of order was held not to lie against an amendment 
    proposing to increase a lump-sum appropriation 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, (3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 12858, a point of order against an 
amendment to the bill was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 11766, 11767, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 10061, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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

[[Page 5560]]

    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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the discussion of related rulings 
in Sec. Sec. 7.10 et seq., supra; and see Ch. 25, Sec. 2.17, volume 7, 
supra.

Rivers and Harbors

Sec. 19.7 An appropriation for an ``experimental cut'' in connection 
    with a survey under the Rivers and Harbors Act was held not to be 
    authorized by law inasmuch as conditions set forth in the act had 
    not been met.

    On June 15, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7493, an appropriation for civil functions of the War 
Department. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 5787, 5788, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Florida: Page 7, after 
    line 16, add a new paragraph as follows:
        ``For experimental cut, Big Pass-Clearwater, Fla., in 
    connection with survey authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act 
    approved August 30, 1935, $21,000: Provided, That local interest 
    shall contribute not less than $10,000 toward such project.''. . . 
    .
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder of Pennsylvania: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order is that the matter covered by the proposed amendment 
    is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Hardin] Peterson of Florida: Mr. Chairman, the Rivers 
    and Harbors Act of 1935 authorized a survey. This provides an 
    appropriation for the purpose of carrying out that survey. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule:
        Section 3 of the act of August 30, 1935, gives to the Secretary 
    of War--

            Authority to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to 
        be made at the following-named localities, the cost thereof to 
        be paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for 
        such purposes: Provided, That no further examination, survey 
        project, or estimate for new works other than those designated 
        in this or some prior act or joint resolution shall be made: 
        Provided further, That after the regular or formal reports made 
        as required by law on any examination, survey, project, or work 
        under way or proposed or submitted no supplemental or 
        additional report or estimate shall be made unless authorized 
        by law. . . .

        The provision (authorizes) preliminary examinations and 
    surveys, and specifically (provides):

            That the Government shall not be deemed to have entered 
        upon any project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor 
        mentioned in this act until the project for the proposed work 
        shall have been adopted by law.

[[Page 5561]]

        No law having been cited by the gentleman from Florida showing 
    that Congress has adopted any program as the result of the 
    recommendations of the Secretary of War by reason of the authority 
    vested in the Secretary and contained in the section to which the 
    Chair has referred, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bureau of Reclamation

Sec. 19.8 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill making appropriations 
    to the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control, an amendment 
    making part of such appropriation available for studying specified 
    work of the Bureau of Reclamation was held to be unauthorized as 
    well as not germane to the paragraph to which offered.

    On June 13, 1951,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an appropriation bill (H.R. 4386), a point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 6522, 6523, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas H.] Werdel [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Werdel: On page 7, line 3, strike 
        out the colon and insert ``of which $15,000 shall be utilized 
        for the study of the specifications used by the Bureau of 
        Reclamation in connection with controls for laterals and 
        sublaterals to distribute water from the Friant Kern Canal, and 
        to estimate the cost of correcting specification errors.''

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California, which I will reserve so that the gentleman may speak on 
    his amendment. . . .
        May I be heard, Mr. Chairman? I feel constrained to speak to 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Porter Hardy, Jr. (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, this deals with the Reclamation 
    Department of the Government and not with the Corps of Engineers It 
    involves a project in reclamation, and we are not talking about 
    reclamation projects here at all.
        I insist on the point of order. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment. As far as any argument 
    which he has heard is concerned, there is no reference to any 
    authority which exists in law for this study and there is nothing 
    in this bill on this subject.
        Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway

Sec. 19.9 An appropriation for the Tennessee-Tombigbee inland

[[Page 5562]]

     waterway was authorized by law.

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3734, a Department of the Army civil functions 
appropriation. A point of order was raised against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3141, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway: For the prosecution of 
    the works of improvement with respect to the Tombigbee and 
    Tennessee Rivers heretofore authorized by law (Public Law 525, 79th 
    Cong.) $3,000,000.''
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment is not germane at this point in the bill, and therefore 
    not in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Rankin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is germane to this part of 
    the bill and is in order.
        This is the part of the bill that covers projects of this kind. 
    I have prepared this amendment to carry out the mandate of Congress 
    2 years ago and the recommendation of the Army engineers. This 
    amendment merely introduces a new section after line 8 on page 8 
    and provides for funds to begin construction of this great inland 
    waterway, this missing link in our great internal waterway system.
        I submit that it is in order and properly presented at this 
    time.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: The provision for rivers and harbors is entirely 
    included in the paragraph beginning at line 10 on page 5 of the 
    bill and ending on line 8, page 8, and all amendments relating to 
    additional rivers and harbors projects would have to be offered 
    within that paragraph. This goes outside of that and is not germane 
    at this point or elsewhere in the bill.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, that is where it is offered.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from New York advise the Chair 
    as to a more appropriate place that he thinks the amendment should 
    be offered to this bill?
        Mr. Taber: I think it must be offered as an amendment to the 
    figure $176,000,000 on page 6, line 22, where all provisions for 
    rivers and harbors are included.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair invites 
    attention to the fact that the paragraph of the bill now under 
    consideration relates to rivers and harbors, maintenance and 
    improvements of existing river and harbor works. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi offers an amendment which has been reported by the 
    Clerk which seeks to add a new paragraph under the same heading of 
    rivers and

[[Page 5563]]

    harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and harbor 
    work. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    amendment relates to the prosecution of work on improvements with 
    respect to certain rivers as heretofore authorized by law. The 
    Chair is constrained to believe that the amendment is in order as a 
    new paragraph and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Diversion Dam, Missouri Basin

Sec. 19.10 An appropriation for the diversion dam, in the Missouri-
    Souris division of the Missouri River Basin project, was authorized 
    by law.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3838, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3525, 3526, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William] Lemke [of North Dakota]: 
    Page 47, line 7, after the word ``Congress'', insert a colon and 
    add the following: ``Provided, That not less than $1,500,000 of the 
    sums hereby appropriated under this head shall be reserved for the 
    diversion dam, Missouri-Souris division, Missouri River Basin 
    project.''
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this particular amendment is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from North 
    Dakota [Mr. Burdick] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This project was 
    authorized in the 1944 Flood Control Act with an appropriation of 
    $200,000,000 for the dams and $200,000,000 for diversion. It is 
    authorized, and there was an appropriation on that authorization.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman cite the law relating to the 
    project in question?
        Mr. Lemke: Public Law 534. . . .
        Mr. Burdick: Mr. Chairman, the matter before us now came into 
    this Congress in a peculiar way. Document 475 came before this 
    Congress authorizing the building of the Garrison Dam by the Army 
    engineers. Senate Document 191 came in authorizing diversion of the 
    waters, to which this amendment alludes. Those two documents, with 
    the consent of the engineers on both sides, resulted in the law 
    which we passed, which was known as Document No. 247. On that 
    document the law was based. That program was authorized. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In light of the information given the Chair, the Chair would 
    invite attention to section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. It 
    would appear from the best examination the Chair has been able to 
    make that the project mentioned in the pending amendment is 
    authorized under that provision. Therefore, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

[[Page 5564]]

Transmission Lines, Bonneville Power

Sec. 19.11 An appropriation for construction of transmission lines from 
    Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane was held authorized by language in the 
    Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935 under ``incidental works necessary 
    to such project.''

    On May 13, 1941,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 4590, an Interior Department 
appropriation, a point of order against language in the bill was 
overruled. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 4004, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Bonneville Power Administration

        For all expenses necessary to enable the Bonneville Power 
    Administrator to exercise and perform the powers and duties imposed 
    upon him by the act ``to authorize the completion, maintenance, and 
    operation of the Bonneville project, for navigation, and for other 
    purposes,'' approved August 20, 1937 [50 Stat. 731), including 
    personal services, travel expenses, purchase and exchange of 
    equipment, printing and binding, and purchase and exchange 
    maintenance, and operation of motor-propelled passenger-carrying 
    vehicles, to remain available until expended, $22,858,500, of which 
    amount not exceeding $4,000,000 shall be immediately available, not 
    exceeding $15,000 shall be available for personal services in the 
    District of Columbia and $885,600 shall be available for expenses 
    of marketing and transmission facilities, and administrative costs 
    in connection therewith: Provided, That $2,000,000 of the foregoing 
    amount shall be available only for the construction of additional 
    transmission lines from the Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane, Wash.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 13, beginning in line 
    25, ``that $2,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be available 
    only for the construction of additional transmission lines from the 
    Grand Coulee Dam to Spokane, Wash.,'' that it is not authorized by 
    law. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Washington is 
    recognized on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles H.] Leavy [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, the basic 
    act providing for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam provides in 
    this language:

            For the purpose of controlling floods, improving 
        navigation, regulating the flow of streams of the United 
        States, providing for storage, for the delivering of stored 
        waters thereof, for the reclamation of the public lands and 
        Indian reservations, and other beneficial uses, and for the 
        generation of electrical energy as a means of financially 
        aiding and assisting. . . .

        Then omitting a portion of the language--

            The President, acting through such agents as he may 
        designate, is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and 
        maintain dams, structures, canals, and incidental works nec

[[Page 5565]]

        essary to such projects, and in connection therewith to make 
        and enter into any and all necessary contracts, including among 
        other things, structures, canals, and incidental works 
        necessary in connection therewith.

        In August 1940 the President by Executive order provided that 
    the power generated at Grand Coulee should be distributed by the 
    Administrator for Bonneville, and the responsibility for marketing 
    that power was placed in the Bonneville Administration.
        If by law we can appropriate money for this activity in its 
    entirety, and if we have that responsibility, then certainly by law 
    we can appropriate money for a particular phase of such activity 
    and so designate that appropriation for a particular purpose.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order should be 
    overruled.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman, 
    but the Chair would first like to inquire of the gentleman from 
    Washington where he read the Executive order of the President? Is 
    that in the hearings?
        Mr. Leavy: That is in the hearings on page 159, the first 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: The Chair would be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Taber] on the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I just want to call attention to the 
    fact that not one single word of the language of the authorization 
    act that was read authorizes the construction of a power line. It 
    authorizes canals, approaches, and incidental structures, but not 
    one single word authorizes the construction of a power dam.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] makes a point of order against the language 
    appearing in line 25, page 13, extending through line 3 on page 14 
    of the pending bill, on the ground that the appropriation there 
    included is not authorized by law.

        The Chair has examined with some degree of care the act to 
    which reference was made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr 
    Leavy], in his discussion on the point of order, which is the 
    Rivers and Harbors Act approved August 30, 1935. The gentleman from 
    Washington very kindly assisted the Chair in citing the language of 
    this act with respect to the Grand Coulee Dam. Without repeating 
    the language quoted by the gentleman from Washington the Chair 
    desires to invite especial attention to the following provision 
    included in the act, which is a part of the language quoted by the 
    gentleman from Washington:

            And incidental works necessary to such projects.

        The Chair is of the opinion that that language, taken with the 
    entire act and the clear purpose of the act as stated, would form a 
    sufficient basis to sustain the appropriation included in this item 
    of the pending bill. Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that 
    this item is authorized by existing law, and the Chair therefore is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.

Tennessee Valley Authority Act

Sec. 19.12 An appropriation for the construction of a dam on the lower 
    Tennessee River

[[Page 5566]]

    was held authorized by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.

    On May 8, 1936,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12624, a deficiency appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 6964, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Tennessee Valley Authority

            For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
        entitled ``The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933'', 
        approved May 18, 1933 (U.S.C., title 16, ch. 12a), as amended 
        by the act approved August 31, 1935 (49 Stat. 1075-1081), 
        including the continued construction of Norris Dam, Wheeler 
        Dam, Pickwick Landing Dam, Guntersville Dam, and Chickamauga 
        Dam (hereafter to be known as McReynolds Dam), and the 
        beginning of construction on a dam on the Hiwassee River, a 
        tributary of the Tennessee River, at or near Fowler Bend, and 
        the continuation of preliminary investigations as to the 
        appropriate location and type of a dam on the lower Tennessee 
        River, and the acquisition of necessary land, the clearing of 
        such land, relocation of highways, and the construction or 
        purchase of transmission lines and other facilities, and all 
        other necessary works authorized by such acts, and for printing 
        and binding, law books, books of reference, newspapers, 
        periodicals, purchase, maintenance, and operation of passenger-
        carrying vehicles, rents in the District of Columbia and 
        elsewhere, and all necessary salaries and expenses connected 
        with the organization, operation, and investigations of the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority, fiscal year 1937, $39,900,000: 
        Provided, That this appropriation and any unexpended balance on 
        June 30, 1936, in the ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 
        1936'', and the receipts of the Tennessee Valley Authority from 
        all sources during the fiscal year 1937 (except as limited by 
        sec. 26 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
        amended), shall be covered into and accounted for as one fund 
        to be known as the ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 1937'', 
        to remain available until June 30, 1937, and to be available 
        for the payment of obligations chargeable against the 
        ``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, 1936.''. . .

         Mr. [Herron C.] Pearson [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pearson: On page 19, line 8, after 
        the word ``river'', insert the words ``and the beginning of 
        construction of a dam on the lower Tennessee River.''

        [Mr. John Taber, of New York, having reserved a point of order 
    (16) against the amendment, the following exchange 
    occurred: (17)]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6968.
17. Id. at p. 6969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) oes the gentleman from New York 
    insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Taber: That it is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    is an item not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, may I ask 
    the gentleman from New York to withhold his point of order?

[[Page 5567]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to have some information 
    from the gentleman from Tennessee. Will the gentleman from 
    Tennessee point out to the Chair any existing law which authorizes 
    the construction contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee?
        Mr. Pearson: The act which created the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority provided for the construction of necessary dams on the 
    river to carry out the projects stated therein--that is, for 
    national defense and navigation.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, in order to make my point of order 
    clear, let me say that this is beyond the scope of the Tennessee 
    Valley Authority. The word ``necessary'' requires the fact to be 
    established in ruling upon the language.
        It was stated by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the hearings 
    that this Gilbertville proposition involved a dam and a canal--a 
    large dam in the Ohio which would cover operation of both the 
    Cumberland and the Ohio as well as the Tennessee. This Tennessee 
    Valley Authority relates only to the dams entirely within their 
    authority covering the Tennessee only. This goes beyond the scope 
    of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama rose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Hill of Alabama: I do. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    clearly in order. I call the Chair's attention to section 2, 
    subsection (j), of Public Law 412, Seventy-fourth Congress, which 
    is the amendatory act of the Tennessee Valley Authority. . .
        I think under the language there can be no question but that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee is in order. 
    The language authorizes construction of any and all dams that may 
    be needed for flood control and navigation of the Tennessee River. 
    All dams from Knoxville to the mouth of the river are authorized. 
    The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee is undoubtedly in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Pearson] inserts, after the word 
    ``river'', line 8, page 19, the words ``and the beginning of 
    construction on a dam on the lower Tennessee River.'' The question 
    as it appears to the Chair is whether or not there is any existing 
    law which authorizes the construction of such a dam. The gentleman 
    from Alabama [Mr. Hill] has referred to Public, No. 412, of the 
    first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress, which the Chair 
    reads--and, by the way, it is an amendment to the original 
    Tennessee Valley Act:

            Sec. 2. That subdivision (j) of said section 4 of said act 
        be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
            ``(j) Shall have power to construct such dams and 
        reservoirs in the Tennessee River and its tributaries, as in 
        conjunction with Wilson Dam, and Norris, Wheeler, and Pickwick 
        Landing Dams, now under construction, will provide a 9-foot 
        channel in the said river and maintain a water supply for the 
        same from Knoxville to its mouth, and will best serve to 
        promote navigation on the Tennessee River and its tributaries 
        and control destructive flood waters in the Tennessee and 
        Mississippi River drainage basins; and shall have power to 
        acquire or construct power-houses, power structures, 
        transmission lines, navigation projects, and incidental

[[Page 5568]]

        works in the Tennessee River and its tributaries, and to unite 
        the various power installations into one or more systems by 
        transmission lines. The directors of the Authority are hereby 
        directed to report to Congress their recommendations not later 
        than April 1, 1936, for the unified development of the 
        Tennessee River system.''

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language just read constitutes 
    an authorization for the appropriation, and the Chair overrules the 
    point of order and holds the amendment to be in order.

Public Buildings, Requirement for Committee Approval

Sec. 19.13 Where existing law (40 USC Sec. 606) specifically prohibits 
    the making of an appropriation to construct or alter any public 
    building involving more than $500,000 unless approved by 
    resolutions adopted by House and Senate Committees on Public Works, 
    an appropriation in a general appropriation bill for public 
    building construction or renovation not previously authorized by 
    both committees is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(a), 
    notwithstanding the ``work in progress'' exception stated in that 
    rule and readopted subsequent to enactment of 40 USC Sec. 606, 
    since the law specifically precludes the appropriation from being 
    made and the ``work in progress'' exception is only applicable 
    where there is no authorization in law.

     On June 8, 1983,(19) a paragraph of a general 
appropriation bill containing funds for the General Services 
Administration for construction of new buildings at two sites and 
repair of two existing projects was conceded to be unauthorized and was 
ruled out on a point of order, since the construction and repair had 
not been authorized by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
as required by statute for projects in excess of $500,000 (40 USC 
Sec. 606), and since the public works in progress exception for 
unauthorized construction and repair does not countervail a statute 
requiring specific authorization before an appropriation can be made. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point of order against four provisions found in title IV in which 
    the paragraph is entitled ``General Services Administration, 
    Federal Buildings Fund, Limitations on Availability of Revenue.''
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 5569]]

        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

            The revenues and collections deposited into the fund 
        pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
        490(f)), shall be available for necessary expenses of real 
        property management and related activities not otherwise 
        provided for, including operation, maintenance, and protection 
        of federally owned and leased buildings, rental of buildings in 
        the District of Columbia . . . repair and alteration of 
        federally owned buildings, including grounds, approaches and 
        appurtenances, care and safeguarding of sites, maintenance, 
        preservation, demolition, and equipment . . . preliminary 
        planning and design of projects by contract or otherwise; 
        construction of new buildings (including equipment for such 
        buildings); and payment of principal, interest, taxes, and any 
        other obligations for public buildings acquired by purchase 
        contract, in the aggregate amount of $2,023,143,000 of which 
        (1) not to exceed $132,510,000 shall remain available until 
        expended for construction of additional projects as authorized 
        by law at locations and at maximum construction improvement 
        costs (including funds for sites and expenses) as follows:
            New Construction: . . .
            Oregon: Portland, Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
        Building, $67,475,000. . . .
            Tennessee: Knoxville, Federal Building, $14,990,000. . . .
            Provided further, That funds in the Federal Buildings Fund 
        for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be 
        limited to the amount by project as follows, except each 
        project may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 per 
        centum unless advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
        on Appropriations of the House and Senate for a greater amount: 
        . . .
            New York: New York, Federal Office Building, 252 Seventh 
        Avenue, $579,000. . . .
            Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, Post Office, $8,974,000. . . .

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, specifically, on page 18, 
    lines 13 through 17 of the bill, H.R. 3191, under consideration, 
    there appears an appropriation in the amount of $67,475,000 for the 
    construction of the Bonneville Power Administration Federal 
    Building in Portland, Oreg., and $14,990,000 for the construction 
    of a Federal building in Knoxville, Tenn.
        In addition, on page 20, lines 18 and 19, there appears an 
    appropriation in the amount of $579,000 for renovation of the 
    Federal Office Building at 252 Seventh Avenue in New York, N.Y.; as 
    well as on page 20, lines 23 and 24, there appears an appropriation 
    in the amount of $8,974,000 for the repair and alteration of the 
    post office in Pittsburgh, Pa.
        These four appropriations appear to be in violation of rule 
    XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 
    as amended, 40 U.S.C. 606, states:

            In order to insure the equitable distribution of public 
        buildings throughout the United States with due regard for the 
        comparative urgency of need for such buildings, except as 
        provided in Section 4, no appropriation shall be made to 
        construct, alter, purchase, or to acquire any building to be 
        used as a public building which involves a total expenditure in 
        excess of $500,000 if such construction, alteration, pur

[[Page 5570]]

        chase, or acquisition has not been approved by resolutions 
        adopted by the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and 
        House of Representatives, respectively.

        Mr. Chairman, the law is clear that prior to the appropriation 
    of funds for the construction or alteration of a public building 
    which cost shall exceed $500,000, a resolution must be reported by 
    your House Committee on Public Works and Transportation approving 
    such authorization. This action has not occurred to date. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: . . . It is my 
    understanding that the prospectuses for the construction that is in 
    the bill have not been approved; is that correct?
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, they have not been 
    approved by our subcommittee nor by the full committee.
        Mr. Roybal: Since they have not been approved by any of the 
    committees, I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.