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


[Page 5397-5410]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 8. Works in Progress

    Rule XXI clause 2(a),(4) in part prohibits, in general 
appropriation bills, appropriations for expenditures not previously 
authorized by law, except to continue appropriations for public works 
and objects which are already in progress. The phrase refers to 
tangible works and objects like buildings and roads; it does not 
contemplate continuance of an indefinite or intangible 
work.(5) This exception should be compared with the similar 
exception contained in clause (5) (now 6) Rule XXI discussed in Chapter 
25, Sec. 3.16, supra, wherein reappropriations of unexpended balances 
of appropriations have been prohibited on general appropriation bills 
since 1946 except in connection with public works (not objects) on 
which work has commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1985). For discussion of the 
        distinction between appropriations allowed without 
        authorization for ``works in progress,'' and those 
        appropriations which are expressly limited to use for such 
        projects as are authorized by law, see the Parliamentarian's 
        Note at Sec. 7.10, supra, and see, generally, Sec. 7.10-7.13, 
        supra.
 5. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3714, 
        3715.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work Already Commenced

Sec. 8.1 When the construction of a building for a public purpose has 
    been commenced and there is no limit of cost, further unauthorized 
    appropriations may be made under the exception for works in 
    progress.

    On Apr. 27, 1945,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3024, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 3911, 3912, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         general fund, construction

        For continuation of construction of the following projects in 
    not to exceed the following amounts to be immediately available, 
    and to be reimbursable under the reclamation law.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . . I make a point of order against the entire paragraph 
    because it is in violation of title 33 (sic), section 414, of the 
    code. . . .
        I refer to the paragraph beginning on line 9 and concluding 
    with line 13, on page 59.
        Mr. Chairman, the language of the statute (43 USC Sec. 414) 
    reads as follows:

            Expenditures shall not be made for carrying out the 
        purposes of the reclamation law except out of appropriations 
        made annually therefor and there shall annually in the Budget 
        be submitted to Congress estimates of the amount of money 
        necessary to be expended for carrying

[[Page 5398]]

        out any or all the purposes authorized by the reclamation law, 
        including the extension and completion of existing projects and 
        units thereof and the construction of new projects.

        The portion (of the law) to which I call particular attention 
    is:

            Annual appropriations made hereunder by Congress for such 
        purposes shall be paid out of the reclamation funds provided 
        for by the reclamation law.

        This paragraph is legislation because it changes the positive 
    terms of the statute which I have just quoted.
        Referring back to the beginning of the bill, it says:

         Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for 
          the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes

            Be it enacted, etc., That the following sums are 
        appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1946, namely.

        This paragraph indicates and shows conclusively that the money 
    will come out of the funds of the Treasury as provided under the 
    terms of the bill. It is in violation of the positive terms of the 
    last sentence of section 414 and, therefore, is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and subject to a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, on page 21 of Cannon's Precedents it is stated:

            In testing the applicability of the rule to a provision 
        under consideration it is necessary to determine, first: Is it 
        a general appropriation bill?

        That question shall be asked. Then, if so, ``Is the expenditure 
    authorized by law?''
        In this case there is legal authority for expending funds on 
    projects generally out of the general fund of the Treasury, and 
    therefore if the language objected to goes one iota beyond the 
    positive terms of section 414, it is legislation and should be 
    stricken out as such.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to 
    be heard on the point of order, if the Chair will permit. . . .
        I desire to call attention to the language in lines 12 and 13, 
    page 59, where it says these amounts are to be reimbursable under 
    the reclamation law. I think it clearly set forth that this 
    category of improvement is under the Reclamation Act, and therefore 
    the point of order should not be sustained.
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The gentleman from Ohio 
    invited the attention of the Chair to a certain provision of 
    Cannon's Procedure which was cited by him. The Chair would invite 
    the gentleman's attention to the fact that he stopped reading just 
    one line too soon, in that the next line following the citation 
    presented by the gentleman states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If not authorized by law is it for a continuation of work 
        in progress?

        The Chair is assured by the gentleman from Oklahoma, the 
    chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the bill under 
    consideration, that the items sought to be stricken by the point of 
    order constitute work in progress.
        The Chair would invite attention to the fact that it just 
    happens that the present occupant of the chair was presiding over 
    the Committee of the

[[Page 5399]]

    Whole House on the state of the Union during the consideration of 
    the Interior Department appropriation bill on May 17, 1937, and was 
    called upon to rule upon a point of order to the same effect as the 
    point of order here presented. The Chair would invite attention to 
    the decision made on that date. It is to be remembered that if 
    construction for public purposes has been commenced, even though 
    original appropriation therefor was made without authorization of 
    law, yet the work being in actual progress, further appropriations 
    may be made under the principle of works in progress. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that the paragraph to which 
    objection is here made really comes under the theory of works in 
    progress and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Project Originally Unauthorized by Law

Sec. 8.2 If the construction of a project for public purposes has been 
    commenced, further appropriations therefor may be made under the 
    exception for works in progress, even though the original 
    appropriation for the project was unauthorized.

    On May 17, 1937, an appropriation for the continuance of the 
construction of the Central Valley project was held to be in order as a 
``work in progress.'' The proceedings, which took place during 
consideration of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill, 
were as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4688, 4689, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Scrugham: In line 20, page 81, insert 
    a new paragraph as follows:
        Central Valley project, California, $12,500,000, together with 
    the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this project 
    contained in the First Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1936.''
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. This is legislation on an appropriation bill, and there is 
    no authority for the appropriation.
        May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that there 
    has been no showing by the committee that there is any authority 
    for the appropriation in this paragraph. The conclusive proof of 
    that is that the proviso just stricken out on a point of order was 
    stricken out because it provided that there may be no authority for 
    this appropriation, and I insist that the paragraph that was 
    stricken out leaves the committee without any authority shown to 
    the Chair under the law for this appropriation.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would be pleased to hear 
    the gentleman from California on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank H.] Buck [of California]: Mr. Chairman, we have had 
    considerable discussion of various similar points of order. The 
    Chair has ruled several times on clause 2 of rule XXI of the House 
    rules. I invite the Chair's attention again to the language of the 
    clause:

[[Page 5400]]

            No appropriation shall be reported . . . for any 
        expenditure not previously authorized by law unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress.

        I invite the Chair's attention to the fact that Central Valley 
    project was established as a public-works project by the President 
    under authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, 
    and I send to the desk for the attention of the Chair the order 
    establishing this as a public-works project. I call the Chair's 
    attention further to the fact that on the 2d day of December 1935 
    the President of the United States approved the feasibility order 
    which had been prepared and sent to him by the Secretary of the 
    Interior as required by law to establish this as a reclamation 
    project.
        I call attention to the further fact that in the first 
    deficiency bill of 1936 there appeared a paragraph, ``Central 
    Valley project, California, for continuation, $6,900,000'', and so 
    forth; and this I send to the desk for the attention of the Chair.
        In view of the ruling Friday on the Gila project, I also call 
    the Chair's attention to a letter received from Commissioner of 
    Reclamation Page, dated May 17, 1937, addressed to me. . . .

            My Dear Mr. Buck: In reply to your request regarding the 
        status of work on the Central Valley project, I am providing 
        the following information concerning construction on this 
        project as of May 1, 1937. . . .
            Of the $11,400,000 available for construction on May 1, 
        1937, a total of $1,069,069.48 actually had been expended in 
        construction and engineering work, and a total of $1,179,600 
        had been obligated or encumbered. Encumbrances placed since May 
        1, due to award of additional contracts, have increased the 
        total obligated funds by several hundred thousand dollars.
            The construction work now is fully under way, with 
        virtually all the preliminary engineering completed. I feel 
        that the construction is being prosecuted vigorously and that 
        good progress has been and is being made.
            Very truly yours,
                                               John C. Page,
                                                 Commissioner.

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that under the rulings of the Chair 
    during the consideration of this bill, and those of previous 
    Chairmen, and under the precedents of the House, that this 
    certainly establishes that this is a public work in progress 
    regardless of the previous authorization contained in the 
    deficiency bill of last year or the authorization under the 
    Emergency Relief Act. Therefore this appropriation is in order, and 
    the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, on this point I desire to call the 
    attention of the Chair to the hearings which were held on the 30th 
    day of March, pages 281 and 289, the latter reference especially. 
    It appears from page 281 that a large amount of money has been 
    spent upon the preliminary and exploratory work, but when you get 
    down to page 289 you get to the meat of this question. Down toward 
    the bottom of the page appears the following colloquy:

[[Page 5401]]

            Mr. Rich. What has the money been spent for?
            Mr. Page. The money has been spent for investigation and 
        preliminary work.

        That is as of the 30th day of March. There cannot be any 
    question but that is the situation, for that is the evidence before 
    us. This, of course, is not under the reclamation law. This is a 
    proposition where funds were appropriated directly out of the 
    Federal Treasury.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada on the ground that 
    the provisions sought to be included by the amendment seek to make 
    appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair desires again to 
    invite attention to clause 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The Chair further desires to invite attention to a precedent 
    appearing in section 1340 of Cannon's Precedents of the House, 
    volume 7, and read a part from that decision, as follows:

            If the construction of a building, for instance, for a 
        public purpose has been commenced, even though originally 
        subject to the point of order, yet the work having commenced 
        and there being no limit of cost, further appropriations may be 
        made.

        There has been presented to the Chair a letter from the 
    Commissioner of Reclamation, and the Chair desires to invite 
    attention to that letter in part as follows, the letter being under 
    date of May 17, 1937. In passing the Chair would comment that, as 
    shown by its date, the letter is subsequent to the date of the 
    hearings to which the gentleman from New York invited attention. 
    This letter is addressed to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Buck] and is as follows:

             In reply to your request regarding the status of work on 
        the Central Valley project I am providing the following 
        information concerning construction on this project as of May 
        1, 1937.
             On that date more than 8,000 feet of tunnels had been 
        excavated under contract and by Government forces, and more 
        than 18,000 feet of tunnel and calyx drill holes sunk under 
        contract and by Government forces on the Kennett (Sacramento 
        River Basin) and Friant (San Joaquin River Basin) divisions of 
        the project. The contracts under which this work was done were 
        still in force on May 1 and additional work now is in progress.
            On May 1, a large concrete, steel-frame warehouse was under 
        construction and nearing completion on the Friant division 
        which includes Friant Dam and the Friant-Kern and Madera 
        Canals. . . .
            The construction work now is fully under way, with 
        virtually all the preliminary engineering completed. . . .

        The Chair, therefore, feels that sufficient evidence has been 
    presented to bring this appropriation in the pending amendment 
    within the principle of work in progress as provided for in clause 
    2 of rule XXI.
        The point of order is overruled.

Reappropriation For Works in Progress

Sec. 8.3 Reappropriation of moneys allotted by the Public Works 
    Administration to several departments or agencies

[[Page 5402]]

    to continue works in progress was held in order.

     On May 13, 1941,(10) 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 as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 4011, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Works Administration allotments made available to 
    the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
    the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by 
    direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to 
    another department or agency, and the allocations made to the 
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the 
    appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act 
    of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, and the 
    Public Works Administration Appropriation Act of 1938, shall remain 
    available for the purposes for which allotted during the fiscal 
    year 1942.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 8, from line 14 to line 
    25, inclusive, that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This is not an item for the 
    continuance of projects, nor is it limited to that, but it is an 
    extension of acts which have or will have expired. Some of them 
    were given an extension a year ago in the appropriation bill that 
    was carried then. A further extension is clearly not authorized by 
    law. There is nothing in the exception to the rule like 
    continuation of a project that would apply to this particular 
    paragraph. It does not do that.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the language of this paragraph . . . 
    with sufficient care to determine that it appears to be exactly the 
    same language as is included in a paragraph of the Interior 
    Department appropriation bill which was considered on March 2, 
    1938. . . .
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that on page 705 
    of the hearings of the pending bill it is stated by the 
    Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation that the items here 
    covered constitute work in progress.
        Therefore the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While beginning in 1946 reappropriations of 
unexpended balances were prohibited in general appropriation bills, 
Rule XXI clause 5 (now clause 6) specifically permitted 
reappropriations of unexpended balances if in continuation of 
appropriations for public works on which work has commenced. (See 
Chapter 25, Sec. 3.16 supra for discussion of this issue.)

Reappropriation to Public Works Administration

Sec. 8.4 Language in an appropriation bill providing that

[[Page 5403]]

    certain prior allocations or allotments made available to the 
    Bureau of Reclamation, either directly or by transfer of allotments 
    (reappropriations) from other agencies, should remain available 
    during fiscal 1939 for those purposes for which allotted, was held 
    in order under the exception for ``works in progress.''

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. During 
consideration of the bill, a point of order was overruled, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Public Works Administration allotments made available to 
    the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
    the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, either by 
    direct allotments or by transfer of allotments originally made to 
    another Department or agency, and the allocations made to the 
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, from the 
    appropriation contained in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act 
    of 1935 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937, shall 
    remain available for the purposes for which allotted during the 
    fiscal year 1939.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph upon the ground that it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    unexpended balances proposed to be appropriated by this paragraph 
    are lawful projects which have qualified as being in order under 
    the rules of the House for one or more of the following reasons:
        First. That they are for improvements of existing projects.
        Second. That the work on them is in progress.
        Third. That there has been a finding of feasibility by the 
    President, which automatically authorizes appropriations, as 
    provided by the reclamation law, title 43, sections 412, 413, and 
    414.

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Nevada states 
    that all of these projects are already under way and that this 
    paragraph simply reappropriates money already available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: These allotments have been made for all sorts of 
    projects not authorized by law, and yet the adoption of this 
    provision would authorize every project that has not yet been 
    authorized for which an allotment has been made.
        The Chairman: The gentleman states that these projects are 
    already under way.
        Mr. Taber: That would not authorize them.
        The Chairman: It authorizes reappropriation of appropriations 
    heretofore made if the work is in progress. The Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 5404]]

Evidence Required to Show ``Works in Progress''

Sec. 8.5 In order to justify an appropriation for a construction 
    project under the exception for ``works in progress'' by 
    establishing that actual work has begun on the construction 
    project, the Chair may require some documentary evidence that 
    actual construction work has been begun.

    On May 14, 1937,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department 
appropriation, a point of order was sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4607, 4608, 4610-12, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Gila project, Arizona, $1,250,000: Provided, That any right to 
    use of water from the Colorado River acquired for this project and 
    the use of the lands and structures for the diversion and storage 
    of the same shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado 
    River Compact, as provided in section 8 of the Boulder Canyon 
    Project Act, approved December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1062), and 
    section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 (49 
    Stat. 1040);
        Mr. [Laurence] Lewis [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the paragraph beginning on page 76, line 20, 
    down to the bottom of the page and continuing on down through and 
    including line 3, on page 77, on the ground that this item of 
    appropriation has not been authorized by law, and, further, that it 
    is contrary to law. No authorization has been enacted for this 
    item. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Permit the Chair to state to the 
    gentleman from Nevada that the Chair is familiar with the citation 
    to which the gentleman has called attention. The Chair is not 
    familiar with the actual situation existing with reference to this 
    project. What physical work has been started? What has been done? 
    This the Chair would like to know in order that the Chair may 
    determine whether the principle of work in progress applies to this 
    item. The Chair will appreciate the gentleman's addressing himself 
    to the Chair. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [After further discussion:] The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lewis) makes a point of order 
    against the paragraph beginning in line 20 on page 76 and extending 
    through the remainder of the paragraph, on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and on the further ground that 
    it is not authorized by existing law; and he advances the position 
    that it does not come within the principle of ``work in progress.''
        The Chair invites attention to section 2 of rule XXI. . . .
        The Chair is impressed with what appears to be the unmistakable 
    fact that there has been a general tendency to narrow the 
    application of the so-called principle of ``works in progress'' as 
    they relate to general appropriation bills. The Chair sought to 
    secure the

[[Page 5405]]

    best information available as to the actual situation existing with 
    reference to this appropriation, and, with all due deference, the 
    Chair feels that he has not been presented with a sufficient type 
    of documentary evidence to clearly show the Chair that actual, 
    physical construction on this particular project has been begun. To 
    say the least, the Chair entertains some doubt in his mind as to 
    the actual status of the work on this project. In the absence of 
    evidence of that type, the Chair feels that this doubt should have 
    some degree of control in making a decision on a matter of this 
    importance.
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the language 
    that was called to the attention of the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
    Scrugham] undoubtedly has some bearing upon the question as to 
    whether or not this is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    especially the language carried in the proviso, which was recently 
    discussed with the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman from Nevada 
    quite frankly replied to the inquiry of the Chair, that the purpose 
    of including this language was to force compliance with a certain 
    State compact.
        Therefore, the Chair feels there could be no doubt that the 
    effect of the inclusion of this language would be that of 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to hold that the proper 
    showing has not been made in the form of documentary evidence that 
    actual construction work has been begun on this particular project. 
    The Chair feels, under an interpretation of the rule and 
    application of the precedents, and especially in view of the 
    language appearing in the proviso, that the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Lewis] to this paragraph should be 
    sustained, and therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 8.6 The Chair, in determining whether an appropriation for a 
    project was permissible under the exception for public works in 
    progress, has accepted as documentary evidence a letter from an 
    executive officer charged with the duty of constructing such 
    project.

    The proceedings of May 17, 1937, which took place during 
consideration of H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation, have 
been discussed in a previous section.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 8.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.7 News articles to the effect that soldiers were working on a 
    highway or on the way to construct a highway were held not to be 
    sufficient evidence that an appropriation was permissible under the 
    exception for ``works in progress.''

    On Mar. 10, 1942,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736, a War Department civil functions appropriation

[[Page 5406]]

bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 2223, 2224, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] 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 make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        Mr. 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. . . .
        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 on 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.

        I also call attention to a statement on page 4 of the Official 
    Information Digest issued by the Office of Government Reports on 
    March 5, in which it is stated that War Secretary Stimson announced 
    that Engineer Corps troops were already on their way to work on 
    roads for this Alaskan highway. In other words, construction has 
    already begun.
        The United Press this morning reported that 93 soldiers and 
    engineers had arrived from a fort at Cheyenne, Wyo., and were 
    already in Canada working on this highway. This highway is under 
    construction, and on this basis an amendment providing continuation 
    funds should be in order in this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The mere fact that press reports show that certain groups are 
    in Alaska 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.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Did the Chair understand that I 
    quoted also from the Information Digest issued by the Office of 
    Government Reports?
        The Chairman: The mere information does not constitute an 
    authorization, or does not show the work has actually begun, and is 
    in course of construction.

``Addition'' to Building

Sec. 8.8 An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for the building of an addition to

[[Page 5407]]

    the Indian sanitorium at Shawnee, Okla., was held to be an 
    appropriation for a public work in progress.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. During 
consideration, a point of order against an amendment to the bill was 
overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 2650, 2651, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          construction and repair

        For the construction, repair, or rehabilitation of school, 
    agency, hospital, or other buildings and utilities, including the 
    purchase of land and the acquisition of easements or rights-of-way 
    when necessary, and including the purchase of furniture, 
    furnishings, and equipment, as follows:
        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boren: Page 65, line 3, after the 
        colon, add: ``Shawnee, Okla., addition to Indian Sanitorium, 
        $150,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. Is there any legislation 
    authorizing this expenditure?
        Mr. Boren: I am not familiar with any specific authorization.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order there is no 
    legislation authorizing this expenditure and therefore it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    have anything to say on the point of order, or can the gentleman 
    refer to any statute authorizing the expenditure?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boren: Not specifically. The foundation of this amendment 
    is based on the general law that permits extensions of these 
    hospitals and buildings.
        The Chairman: May the Chair ask the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    whether the institution for which he offers this addition is a 
    going institution at the present time?
        Mr. Boren: It is a going institution, and on page 55 of the 
    bill, Mr. Chairman, provision is made for operating the 
    institution.
        The Chairman: Is other provision made in this bill for the 
    institution?
        Mr. Boren: For the maintenance and operation; yes. This 
    amendment is for additional facilities.
        The Chairman: Are there some buildings there at the present 
    time?
        Mr. Boren: Yes; there are six or seven buildings there now and 
    the purpose of this amendment is to improve those buildings.
        The Chairman: Is this for the purpose of constructing a new 
    building or for repairing a building already there?
        Mr. Boren: It is an addition to the present building, providing 
    sleeping porches, sewer facilities, and so forth.
        The Chairman: The point the Chair would like to have specific 
    information about is whether there is a sanitorium there at the 
    present time or is this a completely new building?
        Mr. Boren: There is a sanitorium there at the present time, Mr. 
    Chair

[[Page 5408]]

    man, and the intent of the amendment is to provide, in addition to 
    the present sanitorium, sleeping porches and sewer facilities, and 
    so forth, for the existing building.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to have the gentleman state 
    specifically whether this is an addition to an existing 
    building.(1) If that is the fact, it would make a 
    difference in the ruling of the Chair on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3774, 3775, for further 
        discussion of additions to existing buildings as works in 
        progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boren: That is the fact, Mr. Chairman, and the word 
    ``building'' should be pluralized, because there are about seven 
    buildings there now.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Statutory Requirement that Repairs Be Authorized

Sec. 8.9 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,(2) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make 
    a point

[[Page 5409]]

    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: (3) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The portion of the bill to which the point of order related 
    was 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

[[Page 5410]]

        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, purchase, 
        or acquisition has not been approved by resolutions adopted by 
        the Committee 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.