[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 15. Environment and Interior]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5485-5523]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 15. Environment and Interior

Environmental Protection Agency

Sec. 15.1 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    to enable the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
    to obtain reports as to the probable adverse effect on the economy 
    of certain federal environmental actions, and reappropriating funds 
    generally available to the Administrator for the preparation of 
    such reports, was conceded to be unauthorized by law and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    On June 23, 1971,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 21641, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The sum of $6,300,000, together with such additional funds 
        as may be necessary to be derived from general administrative 
        funds available to the Administrator, is appropriated to enable 
        the Administrator to obtain, except where there is determined 
        to be an imminent hazard to human life, in advance of 
        determination of action to be taken or recommended from those 
        agencies of Government or other entities, governmental or 
        private, which are required to file reports on major Federal 
        actions determined to have a significant effect on the quality 
        of the human environment, reports as to the probable adverse 
        effect on the economy, including employment and unemployment, 
        if such action is taken and the project or proposed action is 
        delayed or terminated. And, if necessary, the Administrator is 
        authorized to reimburse the affected agency of Government or 
        other entities for the reasonable costs of preparing such 
        reports, if additional work is required.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The whole paragraph was conceded to be subject to a point of order. 
        See H. Rept. No. 92-289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise for 
    the purpose of making a point of order with regard to the language 
    appearing on page 28, lines 8 through 24, of the bill, which 
    constitutes, in my opinion, and also in the language in the report, 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore is violative of 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order and say, if I may, the 
    committee agrees as to the point of order on the bill. Of course, 
    we do not agree as to the point of order in the report. We wrote 
    this in the report and, if I may pursue this a little further, we 
    were asked to appropriate all of this money through the agency 
    without any safeguard being written around how it would be handled. 
    We did not ask for a rule on it, but until the gentleman in the 
    well

[[Page 5486]]

    and others who are responsible, on very fine legislative 
    committees, get around to writing some kind of a restriction or a 
    guideline for this environmental protection agency and for the 
    administrator, we are in a bad way, in my opinion, unless we have 
    this language in here. It was for that reason that we wrote it in 
    here trying to hold the line until the legislative committees could 
    act. We readily concede that it is subject to a point of order, and 
    if the gentleman or others insist on knocking it out, all they have 
    to do is make the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Whitten), concedes the point of order to the language 
    appearing between lines 8 and 24 on page 28 of the bill on the 
    ground that it does provide funds for carrying out a function not 
    previously authorized by enabling legislation Therefore it does 
    constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Funds for Outside Review Board

Sec. 15.2 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill making funds 
    available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
    Agency to establish an independent grant and contract review board 
    to review the priorities of the agency and its award of contracts 
    was conceded to be subject to a point of order and was ruled out as 
    unauthorized by law.

    On June 23, 1971,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 9270), a 
point of order was raised against the following provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 21641, 21642, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The sum of $2,500,000, together with such additional funds 
        as may be necessary to be derived from general administrative 
        funds available to the Administrator, is appropriated to 
        provide for an independent grant and contract review board made 
        up of qualified persons selected to review the agency's 
        priorities and to assume that such contracts and grants are 
        awarded only to qualified research agencies or individuals 
        consistent with national economic and environmental needs.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    same point of order on which the Chair has just ruled, namely, that 
    the language beginning on page 28 at line 25 and continuing through 
    line 8 on page 29 again constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
    bill, and so is violative of the rules. Again I renew my point of 
    order in that this appropriation has not been previously 
    authorized.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee takes the same view and concedes the point of order.

[[Page 5487]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi concedes the point 
    of order, so the point of order is sustained.

River and Harbor Projects; Lump Sum

Sec. 15.3 A point of order was held not to lie against a lump-sum 
    appropriation for river and harbor projects on the ground that some 
    of the projects enumerated in the committee report for allocation 
    of funds had not been authorized, since language in the bill 
    limited use of the appropriation to ``projects authorized by law.''

    On June 18, 1958,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law; detailed 
    studies, and plans and specifications, of projects (including those 
    for development with participation or under consideration for 
    participation by States, local governments, or private groups) 
    authorized or made eligible for selection by law (but such studies 
    shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
    construction); and not to exceed $1,600,000 for transfer to the 
    Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife as 
    authorized by law; to remain available until expended $577,085,500. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    paragraph.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the paragraph.
        Mr. Taber: The paragraph beginning page 3, line 22 and ending 
    on page 5, line 9, on the ground it contains funds the 
    appropriation which has not been authorized by law. The figure 
    there is $577,085,500. I am advised by the Corps of Engineers, by 
    letter dated June 11, 1958, that there is contained here 
    $57,702,253 in projects which are not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The language is very specific. As the chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations pointed out a moment ago, beginning on line 23, 
    page 3, the language is as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5488]]

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

Sec. 15.4 To an appropriation bill providing a lump sum for 
    construction of river and harbor projects authorized by law, an 
    amendment to allocate part of the lump-sum appropriation to three 
    projects not authorized by law (although provided for in an 
    authorization bill which had passed the House) was ruled out of 
    order.

    On June 19, 1958,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12858, a bill making appropriations for civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army and certain 
agencies of the Department of the Interior. During consideration, a 
point of order was raised and sustained against an amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 11646, 11763, 11764, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Construction, General

        For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, shore 
    protection, and related projects authorized by law . . . 
    $577,085,500. . . .
        Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Becker: Page 4, line 8, 
        immediately preceding the colon, insert the following: ``of 
        which $1,370,000, shall be used to initiate (1) the Fire Island 
        Inlet beach erosion project, in accordance with the 
        recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in House 
        Document No. 411, 84th Congress; (2) the Irondequoit Bay 
        dredging and beach erosion project in accordance with the 
        recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in House 
        Document No. 332, 84th Congress; and (3) the Eel River, Calif., 
        flood control project in accordance with recommendations of the 
        Chief of Engineers contained in House Document No. 80, 85th 
        Congress.'' . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (9) Will the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Becker], as author of the amendment, cite the authority 
    wherein these projects are authorized by law?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Becker: Mr. Chairman, these projects are not authorized by 
    law any more than the question which was raised yesterday on the 
    point of order on the previous projects and surveys. These are 
    authorized in the bill that was passed yesterday, the omnibus 
    public works bill. Therefore, I know it is not signed into law, but 
    it was passed by the House yesterday and this method is being used 
    to try to expedite the work and get the projects done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has pointed out that these projects 
    are in

[[Page 5489]]

    cluded in the bill which passed the House on yesterday, but as the 
    gentleman knows that bill has not yet become law. These projects, 
    therefore, do not meet the requirements of eligibility and the 
    Chair must, therefore, under the rules sustain the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].

Protection of Deer; Leasing of Land For

Sec. 15.5 A provision of law giving general authorization for wildlife 
    conservation activities was held not to authorize earmarking part 
    of an appropriation to be expressly ``for the leasing and 
    management of the lands for the protection of the Florida Key 
    deer.''

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4828, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 99 Cong. Rec. 4148, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Lantaff: On page 20, line 6, 
    immediately following the semicolon and preceding the word ``and'', 
    insert the following: ``not to exceed $10,000 for the leasing and 
    management of the lands for the protection of the Florida Key deer, 
    16 U.S.C. 661.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I hate to do it, 
    but I must make a point of order against this amendment. It is not 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Lantaff [of Florida]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The 
    reference to the United States Code authorizes the leasing of lands 
    by the Department of Interior and is so cited for that purpose This 
    specific authorization is to authorize the leasing of land in this 
    particular area for this particular project and classifies it much 
    the same as the authorization contained in the bill for the Wichita 
    Mountains Wildlife Refuge and for the Crab Orchard National 
    Wildlife Refuge. In the bill you will find the statutory authority 
    cited the same as the statutory authority cited in the amendment 
    which I have offered. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has inspected section 661 of title 16 of the United 
    States Code, the provision which the gentleman from Florida cites 
    as authorizing the proposal contained in his amendment. That code 
    section gives fairly broad authorization to the Fish and Wildlife 
    Service for wildlife conservation, but it does not authorize 
    leasing of lands or the protection of key deer. The gentleman's 
    amendment would earmark funds for a narrow, specific purpose, a 
    purpose not mentioned in the code section which is general. 
    Reference is made to volume VII, section 1452, of Cannon's 
    Precedents, under which the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the authorizing law confers discre

[[Page 5490]]

tion on an executive in allotting funds, authorization for a general 
appropriation is not to be construed as authorizing an appropriation 
for a specific purpose. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1452 states that, 
while the appropriation of a lump sum for a general purpose authorized 
by law is in order, a specific appropriation for a particular item 
included in such general purpose is a limitation on the discretion of 
the executive charged with allotment of the lump sum and is not in 
order on an appropriation bill.

New Function of Government Created by Executive Order

Sec. 15.6 An appropriation for the Division of Geography in the 
    Department of the Interior, for the performance of duties imposed 
    by Executive order with respect to uniform usage in orthography 
    throughout the federal government was conceded and held not to be 
    authorized by law.

    On May 10, 1946,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6335, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following paragraph in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 4828, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Division of Geography

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenses of the 
    Division of Geography, in performing the duties imposed upon the 
    Secretary by Executive Order 6680, dated April 17, 1934, relating 
    to uniform usage in regard to geographic nomenclature and 
    orthography throughout the Federal Government, including personal 
    services in the District of Columbia, stationery and office 
    supplies, and printing and binding, $12,956.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: I make a point of order against the language 
    appearing in lines 3 to 11 on page 3, on the ground that there is 
    no authority of law for the inclusion of this item. . . .
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, as much as it 
    deeply pains me to do so, I must concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois makes a point of 
    order, which is conceded by the gentleman from Oklahoma. The point 
    of order is sustained.

Appropriation for Presidential Committee

Sec. 15.7 Appropriations for the National Power Policy Committee to be 
    used by the com

[[Page 5491]]

    mittee in the performance of functions prescribed by the President, 
    were conceded not to be authorized by law.

    On Mar. 25, 1942,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6845, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point a point of order was raised against a portion of the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 2926, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries: For the Secretary of the Interior, Under Secretary, 
    First Assistant Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and other personal 
    services in the District of Columbia, including a special assistant 
    to the Secretary of the Interior to be appointed without reference 
    to civil-service requirements, at a salary of not to exceed $5,000, 
    and including $28,520 for the National Power Policy Committee, to 
    be used by said committee in the performance of the functions 
    prescribed for it by the President of the United States, 
    $1,027,170: Provided, That no part of the appropriation made 
    available to the office of the Secretary by this section shall be 
    used for the broadcast of radio programs designed for or calculated 
    to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation pending 
    before the Congress.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the words beginning in line 8, on page 74, with the 
    word ``and'' and including the following words which I shall read--
        and including $28,520 for the National Power Policy Committee, 
        to be used by said committee in the performance of the 
        functions prescribed for it by the President of the United 
        States--
    on the ground that this is not authorized by law, that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and that there is no 
    authority anywhere for this appropriation to the National Power 
    Policy Committee.

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, the words to which 
    the gentleman refers are conceded by the committee to be subject to 
    a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against certain language quoted by him. The point 
    of order is conceded by the chairman in charge of the bill, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storage Buildings; Limitation on Funds for Unauthorized Project

Sec. 15.8 An appropriation for the construction of buildings for 
    storage of equipment used for forest roads and trail construction 
    and including a stated limit of cost for construction of any such 
    building was held unauthorized by law and to be legislation 
    establishing a total cost of construction.

    On Mar. 28, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5492]]

ering H.R. 5269, an Agriculture Department appropriation. At one point 
the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 3458, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Forest Roads and Trails

        For carrying out the provisions of section 23 of the Federal 
    Highway Act approved November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 23), including not 
    to exceed $59,500 for departmental personal services in the 
    District of Columbia, $10,000,000, which sum consists of the 
    balance of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal 
    year 1939 by the act approved June 16, 1936 (Stat. 1520), and 
    $3,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year 1940 by the act approved June 8, 1938 (52 Stat 635), to 
    be immediately available and to remain available until expended: 
    Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for the 
    rental, purchase, or construction of buildings necessary for the 
    storage of equipment and supplies used for road and trail 
    construction and maintenance, but the total cost of any such 
    building purchased or constructed under this authorization shall 
    not exceed $7,500.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The latter provision could be considered an interference with 
        executive discretion, therefore legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that this is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill providing for the construction of a building at 
    a limit beyond that authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman make the point 
    of order against the proviso or against the entire paragraph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Against the paragraph.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: I may say, Mr. Chairman, 
    that this provision in the bill is the only limiting authority. If 
    the gentleman can cite us to some other authority establishing the 
    limitation, I should be pleased to have the citation. There is no 
    other limitation, Mr. Chairman, and the point of order is not well 
    taken.
        Mr. Taber: There is no authorization for it at all.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Authority to Make Payroll Deductions

Sec. 15.9 Language in a general appropriation bill providing that the 
    Secretary of the Interior, in his administration of the Bureau of 
    Reclamation, is authorized to contract for medical services for 
    employees and to make necessary payroll deductions agreed to by the 
    employees, was held unauthorized by law.

    The provision and the ruling thereon by the Chairman are discussed 
in the following section.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 15.10, infra.

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

[[Page 5493]]

Authority to Settle Claims

Sec. 15.10 Language in a general appropriation bill providing in part 
    an appropriation for payment of damages caused to the owners of 
    lands by reason of the operations of the United States in the 
    construction of irrigation works which may be ``compromised by 
    agreement between the claimants and the Secretary of the Interior, 
    or such officers as he may designate,'' was held to constitute 
    legislation.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. At one 
point points of order were directed to portions of the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Administrative provisions and limitations: For all expenditures 
    authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof 
    or supplementary thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all 
    other acts under which expenditures from said fund are authorized, 
    including . . . payment of damages caused to the owners of lands or 
    other private property of any kind by reason of the operations of 
    the United States, its officers or employees, in the survey, 
    construction, operation, or maintenance of irrigation works, and 
    which may be compromised by agreement between claimant and the 
    Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may designate . . 
    . Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
    administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
    contract for medical attention and service for employees and to 
    make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the employees 
    therefor. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and contains items not authorized by law.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the language on page 72, 
    line 22, ``examination of estimates for appropriations in the 
    field,'' and at the bottom of the page, ``for lithographing, 
    engraving, printing, and binding,'' and in line 20 of the same 
    page, ``for photographing and making photographic prints,'' and 
    then at the top of page 73, ``purchase of rubber boots for official 
    use by employees,'' and in the middle of the page, at line 12, 
    ``and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
    and the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may 
    designate,'' giving him authority to do things that the law does 
    not authorize. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order for two reasons. First, 
    page 73, line 12, after the word ``works'', the language--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and which may be compromised by agreement between the claimant 
        and the Secretary of the Interior, or such officers as he may 
        designate.

[[Page 5494]]

        Then, going down to the last line on page 73, after the colon, 
    the language:

            Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior in his 
        administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to 
        contract for medical attention and services for employees and 
        to make necessary pay-roll deductions agreed to by the 
        employees therefor.

        For these reasons the Chair sustains the point of order.

Division of Grazing; Travel and Per Diem

Sec. 15.11 Language in a general appropriation bill providing payment 
    of a salary of $5 per diem and necessary travel expenses of members 
    of advisory committees of local stockmen under the Division of 
    Grazing in the Department of the Interior, was held unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938, (2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation, when the 
following paragraph was read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 2548, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Division of Grazing

        For carrying out the provisions of the act entitled ``An act to 
    stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing 
    and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, 
    improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry 
    dependent upon the public range, and for other purposes,'' . . . 
    not to exceed $1,000 for expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the work of the Division of Grazing when authorized 
    by the Secretary of the Interior, $550,000; (for payment of a 
    salary of $5 per diem while actually employed and for the payment 
    of necessary travel expenses, exclusive of subsistence, of members 
    of advisory committees of local stockmen, $100,000); in all, 
    $650,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning with the word ``for'' 
    [following the figure of $550,000] down to the dollar sign 
    ``$100,000'', in line 12, on the ground it is not authorized by 
    law.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, we admit this is 
    legislation, but it is extremely desirable and I hope the gentleman 
    will not press the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the appropriation for this item is all 
    out of line with the justification given at the hearings and, 
    frankly, I shall have to insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Marvin Jones (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of order 
    against the language beginning with the word ``for'', line 8, page 
    5, and continuing down to and including the word ``$650,000'', in 
    line 12 of the same page.
        This being in the form of legislation it is clearly subject to 
    the point of order, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

[[Page 5495]]

Fund for Emergencies of Confidential Character

Sec. 15.12 Language in a general appropriation bill providing for an 
    appropriation for the Division of Investigations in the Department 
    of the Interior, to be expended under the direction of the 
    Secretary of the Interior to meet unforeseen emergencies of a 
    confidential character was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was sustained against the following paragraph because of language 
included therein:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 2545, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For investigating official matters under the control of the 
    Department of the Interior; for protecting timber on the public 
    lands, and for the more efficient execution of the law and rules 
    relating to the cutting thereof; for protecting public lands from 
    illegal and fraudulent entry or appropriation; for adjusting claims 
    for swamplands and indemnity for swamplands; and for traveling 
    expenses of agents and others employed hereunder, $440,000, 
    including not exceeding $34,000 for personal services in the 
    District of Columbia; not exceeding $38,000 for the purchase, 
    exchange, operation, and maintenance of motor-propelled passenger-
    carrying vehicles and motorboats for the use of agents and others 
    employed in the field service; [and not to exceed $5,000 to meet 
    unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character,] to be expended 
    under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, who shall 
    make a certificate of the amount of such expenditure as he may 
    think is advisable not to specify, and every such certificate shall 
    be deemed a sufficient voucher for the sum therein expressed to 
    have been expended.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the paragraph, because it sets up a new 
    division of investigation for which there is no authority of law. 
    This division of investigation was originally created as an 
    emergency in connection with the work of the Public Works program. 
    They now seek to continue it as a permanent proposition, although 
    the Public Works program is on its way out, and no new contracts 
    are being let. This is an entirely new provision for which there is 
    no authority of law, and it is clearly legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    provision on page 4, lines 5 and 6, which provides that not to 
    exceed $5,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
    character may be expended, is clearly not authorized by existing 
    law. The Chair sustains the point of order to the paragraph, 
    without considering the other points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timber Protection

Sec. 15.13 An appropriation for a Division of Investigations,

[[Page 5496]]

    for protecting timber on public lands, was held authorized under 
    existing law.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 83 Cong. Rec. 2545, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Division of Investigations

        For protecting timber on the public lands, and for the more 
    efficient execution of the law and rules relating to the cutting 
    thereof; for protecting public lands from illegal and fraudulent 
    entry or appropriation; for adjusting claims for swamplands and 
    indemnity for swamplands; and for traveling expenses of agents and 
    others employed hereunder, $440,000, including not exceeding 
    $34,000 for personal services in the District of Columbia; not 
    exceeding $38,000 for the purchase, exchange, operation, and 
    maintenance of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles and 
    motorboats for the use of agents and others employed in the field 
    service.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph. There is no authority of law for a 
    division of investigating. Some of the things that are specified 
    there may be authorized, but a division of investigation is not 
    authorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is merely the 
    name of the organization which is carrying on this work, which is 
    clearly authorized by title XVI, chapter 4, United States Code, and 
    certainly is not subject to the point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    language embodied in the amendment proper is clearly authorized by 
    existing law for protecting timber, and so forth. It seems clear 
    that incidental to such authority the power to conduct the 
    investigation in the handling of that and to properly handle it, 
    would be entirely in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgin Islands Deficits

Sec. 15.14 An appropriation for defraying the deficits in the 
    treasuries of the municipal governments of the St. Thomas and St. 
    John Islands was held not to be authorized by law.

    On May 20, 1937,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was sustained against the following paragraph for the reasons 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 4873, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For defraying the deficits in the treasuries of the municipal 
    governments because of the excess of current expenses over current 
    revenues for the fiscal year 1938, municipality of St. Thomas and 
    St. John, $60,000, and municipality of St. Croix, $50,000; in

[[Page 5497]]

    all, $110,000, to be paid to the said treasuries in monthly 
    installments.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order on lines 9 to 14, page 126, to ask some 
    questions of the chairman of the committee. What provision of law 
    is there providing that we should pay the deficits of the 
    municipalities of the Virgin Islands, as carried in lines 9 to 14?
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: I will say to the gentleman that 
    the authority for the administration of the Virgin Islands is to be 
    found in title 48, section 1391, United States Code. Although there 
    is no specific provision of law providing for the payment of 
    deficits of a municipality, the committee felt that the law is 
    sufficiently broad to grant authority for this purpose. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I read from section 1391:

            Under jurisdiction of the Governor; except as provided in 
        this chapter, all military, civil, and judicial powers of the 
        United States to govern the West India Islands acquired from 
        Denmark, shall be vested in the Governor and in such person or 
        persons as the President shall direct. The Congress shall 
        provide for the government of said islands; provided that the 
        President may assign an officer of the Army or the Navy to 
        serve as such Governor--

        And so forth. This is the section that the Budget referred the 
    committee to, and it will be noted that the authority is general 
    but broad in its scope.
        Mr. Snell: I do not see anything in there that says that the 
    Federal Government is responsible for all municipal deficits.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Nor do I see the specific authority, 
    but I will say to the gentleman that this item has been carried in 
    the bill year after year and no one has ever raised the question as 
    to the authority heretofore. Undoubtedly it was the intent of 
    Congress to confer that authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] makes a point of order 
    against the paragraph appearing in lines 9 to 14, inclusive, on 
    page 126 of the bill on the ground that the appropriation there 
    sought to be made is not authorized by existing law.
        The Chair has examined section 1391 of title 48 of the United 
    States Code, to which reference was made by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson]. It appears to the Chair that this provision 
    of law authorizes the establishment of a government for the West 
    Indies Islands, acquired from Denmark, and vests certain 
    discretionary authority in the President until the Congress shall 
    provide for the government of said islands. The Chair is unable to 
    find any definite, specific provision of law included in this 
    section which, in the opinion of the Chair, would authorize the 
    appropriation here sought to be made.
        The Chair has likewise examined the act of Congress approved 
    June 22, 1936, to provide a civil government for the Virgin Islands 
    of the United States, and in neither the provision of law cited by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma nor the act to which the Chair has 
    referred does the Chair find sufficient authority of law to 
    authorize appropriations for municipal deficits in the 
    municipalities set out in this provision of the bill.

[[Page 5498]]

        The Chair is of the opinion that the appropriation is not 
    authorized by existing law, as it is here sought to be made, and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Streets Adjacent to National Park

Sec. 15.15 A proposition to resurface city streets adjacent to Hot 
    Springs National Park was held to be without authority of law.

    On May 14, 1941,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4590, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 4057, 4058, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hot Springs National Park, Ark.: For administration, 
    protection, maintenance, and improvement, including not exceeding 
    $1,400 for the purchase, maintenance, operation, and repair of 
    motor-driven passenger-carrying vehicles for the use of the 
    superintendent and employees in connection with general park work, 
    $77,890.
        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Norrell: On page 109, line 8, 
        after the word ``work'', strike out the sum ``$77,890'', and 
        insert ``including not exceeding $7,000 for payment of the 
        Federal Government's share of resurfacing and reconstructing of 
        Reserve Avenue from its intersection with Cottage Street at the 
        entrance to the Army and Navy Hospital northeasterly to its 
        intersection with Palm Street and that portion of Spring Street 
        and Laurel Street immediately adjacent to and surrounding the 
        grounds on which the Government free bathhouses are located, 
        $84,890.''

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Permit the Chair to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas who owns the street that is here sought 
    to be paved? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Answering the Chair, I am 
    compelled to say that the Park Service advises the committee that 
    the city has jurisdiction over that street, and in fact owns the 
    street. That is the information given the committee. The title is 
    in the city. . . .

        Mr. Norrell: I am prepared to advise the Chairman that the 
    Federal Government owns the fee-simple title to one-half of that 
    street, notwithstanding anything that the Department of the 
    Interior might say.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas offers an amendment which has been reported by the Clerk. 
    The gentleman from California [Mr. Carter] makes the point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized by 
    law. The Chair in

[[Page 5499]]

    vites the attention of the gentleman from Arkansas to section 3779, 
    volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, which appears to the Chair to be 
    directly in point on the question presented. This section reads as 
    follows:

            A proposition to repair paving originally laid by the 
        Government in a city street adjacent to a public building was 
        held not to be in continuation of a public work.
            A proposition to pave city streets adjacent to a public 
        building was held to be without authority of law.
            By reason of that decision and that precedent, the Chair 
        feels that he is compelled to sustain the point of order. The 
        Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and the Clerk will 
        read.

Telephones in Government-owned Residences

Sec. 15.16 Installation of telephones in government-owned residences 
    occupied by employees of the National Park Service was held to be 
    authorized by law.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
following amendment was the subject of a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: On page 
    117, after line 8, insert:

            Appropriations herein made for the National Park Service 
        shall be available for the installation and operation of 
        telephones in Government-owned residences, apartments, or 
        quarters occupied by employees of the National Park Service.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against that amendment in that it goes so far as to include 
    quarters occupied by employees of the National Park Service, which 
    is beyond the authority of the law.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, these are Government-
    owned residences and this service is a necessary incident to the 
    proper carrying out of the work of the Department of the Interior. 
    If the residences in question were privately owned, there might be 
    a question about the point of order, but certainly the language to 
    which the gentleman objects could not possibly be construed as 
    being subject to a point of order under the circumstances and facts 
    stated.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule. If 
    the cottages, residences, and so forth, were privately owned, the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    might lie, but these are entirely Government-owned residences and 
    the installation appears to be necessary and incident to the 
    operation of the National Park Service, and for that reason the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Park Service--Educational Services

Sec. 15.17 An appropriation for the development of edu

[[Page 5500]]

    cational work of the National Park Service was held authorized 
    under the law stating the fundamental purpose of parks, monuments, 
    and reservations to be to conserve the scenery and the natural and 
    historic objects and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in 
    such manner as would leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
    future generations.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was directed against the bracketed language in the following 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2890, 2891, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           National Park Service

        Salaries: For the Director of the National Park Service and 
    other personal services in the District of Columbia, including 
    accounting services in checking and verifying the accounts and 
    records of the various operators, licensees, and permittees 
    conducting utilities and other enterprises within the national 
    parks and monuments, and including the services of specialists and 
    experts for investigations and examinations of lands to determine 
    their suitability for national-park and national-monument purposes: 
    Provided, That such specialists and experts may be employed for 
    temporary service at rates to be fixed by the Secretary of the 
    Interior to correspond to those established by the Classification 
    Act of 1923, as amended, and without reference to the Civil Service 
    Act of January 16, 1883, $259,580, of which amount not to exceed 
    $19,200 may be expended for the services of field employees engaged 
    in examination of lands [and in developing the educational work of 
    the National Park Service. . . .]
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in lines 3 and 4, on page 105, 
    reading, ``and in developing the educational work'' on the ground 
    that there is no law authorizing the Department to go into 
    educational work. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section that the gentleman from Oklahoma has called 
    attention to is the basic law governing the National Park Service, 
    and provides for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 
    such means as will leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
    generations.
        Certainly the education that may be offered by the National 
    Park Service in dealing with its own features and wildlife is a 
    means which will leave the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
    future generations.
        In addition to that, may the Chair call the attention of the 
    Committee to a ruling made on March 2, 1938, in the Committee of 
    the Whole when it was considering the Interior Department 
    appropriation bill, at which time a point of order was made against 
    the paragraph that follows this one be

[[Page 5501]]

    cause of the motion-picture feature. The Chairman at that time 
    ruled that this was a necessary incident to the carrying on of the 
    activities of the National Park Service and certainly must be 
    regarded as in part, at least, educational.
        Under that precedent and with the Chair's present understanding 
    of the purport of the basic law, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

-- Educational Lectures

Sec. 15.18 An appropriation for educational lectures in national parks 
    and other reservations under the National Park Service was held 
    authorized under the law stating the fundamental purpose of such 
    parks and reservations to be to conserve the natural and historical 
    objects and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner 
    as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
    generations.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 2893, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Appropriations herein made for the national parks, national 
    monuments, and other reservations under the jurisdiction of the 
    National Park Service, shall be available for the giving of 
    educational lectures therein; for the services of field employees 
    in cooperation with such nonprofit scientific and historical 
    societies engaged in educational work in the various parks and 
    monuments as the Secretary, in his discretion, may designate; and 
    for travel expenses of employees attending Government camps for 
    training in forest-fire prevention and suppression.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, on page 
    116, at line 23, where it states ``shall be available for the 
    giving of educational lectures therein,'' I make a point of order 
    against that language.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair overrules the point of 
    order for the same reason that a similar point of order has been 
    overruled.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
18. See Sec. 15.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Park Service Photographic Supplies

Sec. 15.19 Language in a general appropriation bill providing 
    appropriations for photographic supplies, prints, and motion 
    picture films for the National Park Service was held authorized by 
    law since incidental to the work of the Service.

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 5502]]

ering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. The following 
paragraph was the subject of a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 2715, 2716, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General expenses: For every expenditure requisite for and 
    incident to the authorized work of the office of the Director of 
    the National Park Service not herein provided for, including 
    traveling expenses, telegrams, photographic supplies, prints, and 
    motion-picture films, necessary expenses of attendance at meetings 
    concerned with the work of the National Park Service when 
    authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, and necessary expenses 
    of field employees engaged in examination of lands and in 
    developing the educational work of the National Park Service, 
    $28,500: Provided, That necessary expenses of field employees in 
    attendance at such meetings, when authorized by the Secretary, 
    shall be paid from the various park and monument appropriations.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this paragraph, because the motion-picture 
    feature of it is not authorized by law. . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    this is a necessary incident to the carrying on of the National 
    Park Service, and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boulder Canyon Project

 Sec.15.20 An appropriation for the continuation of construction of a 
    diversion dam and main canal as part of the Boulder Canyon project 
    was held to be authorized by the Boulder Canyon Act.

    On Jan. 31, 1936,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10630, a Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  80 Cong. Rec. 1312, 1313, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor of Colorado for the 
    committee: On page 69, after line 9, insert a new paragraph to read 
    as follows:
        ``Boulder Canyon project (All-American Canal): For continuation 
    of construction of a diversion dam and main canal (and appurtenant 
    structures) located entirely within the United States connecting 
    the diversion dam with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in 
    California; to acquire by proceedings in eminent domain or 
    otherwise all lands, rights-of-way, and other property necessary 
    for such purposes; and for incidental operations, as authorized by 
    the Boulder Canyon Project Act, approved December 21, 1928 (U.S.C., 
    Supp. VII, title 43, ch. 12-a), to be immediately available and to 
    remain available until advanced to the Colorado River Dam fund, 
    $6,500,000, and for all other objects of expenditure that are 
    specified for projects included in the Interior Department 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1937 under the caption 
    `Bureau of Reclamation.' '
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of

[[Page 5503]]

    order against the amendment that it is an appropriation not 
    authorized by law. . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will state that the 
    appropriation proposed in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Taylor) is authorized by the Boulder Canyon 
    Project Act (U.S.C., title 43, sec. 617), a portion of which the 
    Chair will read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2.  Robert L. Doughton (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            And incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado 
        River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a 
        storage reservoir of a capacity of not less than 20,000,000 
        acre-feet of water and a main canal and appurtenant structures 
        located entirely within the United States connecting the Laguna 
        Dam, or other suitable diversion dam, which the Secretary of 
        the Interior is hereby authorized to construct if deemed 
        necessary or advisable by him upon engineering or economic 
        consideration with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, Calif.

        That provision of law seems to the Chair to authorize the 
    appropriation; therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Indian Affairs

Sec. 15.21 An amendment making an appropriation for financial 
    assistance to public school districts, for the construction and 
    equipment of public school facilities for Navaho Indian children 
    from reservation areas not included in such districts, was held to 
    be authorized by law.

    On July 22, 1954,(3) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9936, a supplemental appropriation bill. The following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  100 Cong. Rec. 11451, 11452, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further amendment:

            Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$3,900,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$6,900,000.''
            Page 10, line 8, after the word ``expended'', insert the 
        following: ``which sum is composed of $3,000,000 to provide 
        financial assistance to public-school districts, for the 
        construction and equipment of public-school facilities for 
        Navaho Indian children from reservation areas not included in 
        such districts, and $3,900,000 for payments under contracts or 
        other obligations entered into pursuant to section 6 of the 
        Federal Aid Highway Act of 1954 (38 Stat. 73).''

        Mr. [William F.] Norrell [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the Rehabilitation Act of the Indian tribes and 
    feels that it is broad enough to cover the amendment. In title 25 
    of the United States Code, where the Navaho and Hopi Rehabilitation 
    Act is codified, section 631 authorizes a broad program of 
    rehabilitation, expressly including ``school buildings and 
    equipment, and other educational measures'' and funds appropriated 
    for such pur

[[Page 5504]]

    poses are authorized to be available ``for all other objects 
    necessary for or appropriate to the carrying out of the provisions 
    of this section.'' Section 452 of title 25 of the United States 
    Code authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contract with 
    States or subdivisions thereof for the education of Indians. 
    Therefore, the appropriation set forth in the amendment in the 
    opinion of the Chair is authorized by law, and the point of order 
    is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Smithsonian Institution

Sec. 15.22 An appropriation for salaries and expenses for 
    anthropological research among the American Indians and the natives 
    of Hawaii ``and other lands under the jurisdiction or protection of 
    the United States'' was held unauthorized by law.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the independent offices appropriation bill 
(H.R. 1984), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  91 Cong. Rec. 953, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           [Smithsonian Institution]

            Salaries and expenses: For all salaries and expenses 
        necessary for continuing preservation, exhibition, and increase 
        of collections from the surveying and exploring expeditions of 
        the Government and from other sources; for the system of 
        international exchanges between the United States and foreign 
        countries; for anthropological researches among the American 
        Indians and the natives of Hawaii and other lands under the 
        jurisdiction or protection of the United States, and the 
        excavation and preservation of archeological remains. . . .

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against certain language on page 50, lines 18 and 
    19, under the heading ``Smithsonian Institution,'' as follows:

            And other lands under the jurisdiction and protection of 
        the United States.

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  William M. Whittington (Miss.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expenses of Indian Tribal Councils

Sec. 15.23 Appropriations for expenses of tribal councils for travel, 
    including supplies and equipment, $5 per day in lieu of 
    subsistence, and 5 cents per mile for use of automobiles (including 
    visits to Washington, D.C.) when authorized and approved by the 
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs, was held not authorized by law and 
    to include legislation.

[[Page 5505]]

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. When the 
following amendment was offered, a point of order was raised against 
certain of its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  83 Cong. Rec. 2646, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 63, line 8, 
    insert:
        ``Expenses of tribal councils or committees thereof (tribal 
    funds): For traveling and other expenses of members of tribal 
    councils, business committees, or other tribal organizations, when 
    engaged on business of the tribes, including supplies and 
    equipment, not to exceed $5 per diem in lieu of subsistence, and 
    not to exceed 5 cents per mile for use of personally owned 
    automobiles, and including visits to Washington, D.C., when duly 
    authorized or approved in advance by the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs, $50,000, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of 
    the particular tribe interested: Provided, That except for the 
    Navajo Tribe, not more than $5,000 shall be expended from the funds 
    of any one tribe or band of Indians for the purposes herein 
    specified.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not authorized by law and 
    that it creates additional duties for the Commissioner of Indian 
    Affairs and, generally, that the entire matter is unauthorized.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is authorized 
    under the Snyder Act, and I call attention to title 25, section 13, 
    which clearly authorizes this expenditure. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The item to which attention has been called in the last 
    paragraph of section 13, title 25, United States Code, includes the 
    following language:

            And for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It does not seem to the Chair that this language is sufficient 
    to include the various items that are included in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the Chair therefore 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

Assistance to Indians

Sec. 15.24 Language in a general appropriation bill providing an 
    appropriation for advances to Indians having irrigable allotments, 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof and 
    thereby to enable Indians to become self-supporting, was held to be 
    within the broad authority to appropriate for assistance of 
    Indians, authorized by law and in order.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior De

[[Page 5506]]

partment appropriation. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  83 Cong. Rec. 2638, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 28, 
    after line 10, insert a new paragraph as follows:
        ``For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support 
    among the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, 
    and other crops, $240,000, which sum may be advanced to Indians for 
    the purchase of seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, and 
    other equipment necessary, and for advances to Indians having 
    irrigable allotments to assist them in the development and 
    cultivation thereof, in the discretion of the Secretary of the 
    Interior, to enable Indians to become self-supporting: Provided, 
    That not to exceed $75,000 of the amount herein appropriated, 
    together with $50,000 made available for this purpose under this 
    head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal 
    year 1938, and hereby continued available for the same purpose for 
    the fiscal year 1939, may be advanced to the Navajo Tribe of 
    Indians for the purchase, feeding, sale, or other disposition of 
    sheep, goats, and other livestock belonging to the Navajo 
    Indians.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, not authorized by law. I make the point of 
    order particularly to that part of the amendment which relates to 
    advances to the Indians having irrigable lands. There is no 
    authority for that provision. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order is made to that provision of the amendment 
    which authorizes advances to Indians having irrigable allotments, 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Referring to title 25, United States Code, section 13, under 
    the heading ``Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau of Indian 
    Affairs,'' the Chair finds that the Bureau is authorized to spend--
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes.

        Among these purposes are listed the following:

            General support and civilization, including education.
            For industrial assistance and advancement and general 
        administration of Indian property.
            For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenance of 
        existing Indian irrigation systems, and for development of 
        water supplies.

        It seems clear to the Chair the appropriation is authorized 
    under the terms of that act, and the point of order is, therefore, 
    overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The discretionary authority given to the 
Secretary was not specifically mentioned in the point of order and was 
not the basis of the Chair's ruling.

[[Page 5507]]

 Indian Forest Lands

Sec. 15.25 An appropriation for the administration of Indian forest 
    lands from which timber was sold, to be available for the expenses 
    of such administration ``to the extent only that proceeds from the 
    sales of timber . . . are insufficient for that purpose,'' was 
    authorized by the Snyder Act.

    On May 14, 1937,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order against the following paragraph was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the preservation of timber on Indian reservations and 
    allotments other than the Menominee Indian Reservation in 
    Wisconsin, the education of Indians in the proper care of forests, 
    and the general administration of forestry and grazing work, 
    including fire prevention and payment of reasonable rewards for 
    information leading to arrest and conviction of a person or persons 
    setting forest fires, or taking or otherwise destroying timber, in 
    contravention of law on Indian lands, $260,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for the expenses of administration 
    of Indian forest lands from which timber is sold to the extent only 
    that proceeds from the sales of timber from such lands are 
    insufficient for that purpose. . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  The latter provision could actually be regarded as a limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr Chairman, 
    I make the point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wigglesworth: I make the point of order on the paragraph 
    upon the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman kindly indicate just what 
    there is in the paragraph that constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriation?
        Mr. Wigglesworth: I call the Chair's attention particularly to 
    the proviso at the conclusion of the paragraph.
        The Chairman: In what respect does the gentleman hold that that 
    proviso constitutes legislation?
        Mr. Wigglesworth: It seems to me that the language is clearly 
    legislative in character and imposes additional duties to those now 
    in existence. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes a point of order against the 
    proviso beginning in line 24, page 23, of the pending bill, and 
    assigns as ground for the point of order that it is legislation on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chair invites the gentleman's attention to section 13 of 
    title 25 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Snyder 
    Act, which provides for industrial assistance and advancement and 
    general administration of Indian property. Further, the same act 
    provides ``and for general and incidental expenses in connection 
    with the administration of Indian affairs.''

[[Page 5508]]

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the provisions of existing 
    law, to which attention has been invited, contain legislative 
    authority for the appropriation appearing in the item to which the 
    gentleman makes a point of order.
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that it is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and overrules the point of 
    order.

 Indians--Extent of Authority Under Snyder Act

Sec. 15.26 Language providing an appropriation for the purpose of 
    encouraging industry and self-support among the Indians and 
    outlining areas of discretionary authority to be exercised by the 
    Secretary of the Interior was held to be authorized by the Snyder 
    Act although other language of the paragraph in question caused the 
    entire paragraph to be ruled out as legislation.

     On May 14, 1937,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. At 
one point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 4598, 4599, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among 
    the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and 
    other crops, $165,000, which sum may be used for the purchase of 
    seeds, animals, machinery, tools, implements, and other equipment 
    necessary, and for advances to Indians having irrigable allotments 
    to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, to enable Indians to 
    become self-supporting: Provided, That the expenditures for the 
    purposes above set forth shall be under conditions to be prescribed 
    by the Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States 
    on or before June 30, 1943, except in the case of loans on 
    irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in which 
    the period for repayment may run for not exceeding 20 years, in the 
    discretion of the Secretary of the Interior: . . . Provided 
    further, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, 
    in his discretion and under such rules and regulations as he may 
    prescribe, to make advances from this appropriation to old, 
    disabled, or indigent Indian allottees, for their support, to 
    remain a charge and lien against their lands until paid. . . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning on page 26, line 4. The point 
    of order is that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and 
    it imposes discretionary duties upon the Secretary of the Interior. 
    The language at the bottom of the bill, beginning with ``Provided 
    further'', line 22, and the last proviso are entirely the same. 
    They provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall make rules 
    and regulations and there is no question but what it imposes 
    additional duties upon the Secretary of the Interior all the way 
    through.

[[Page 5509]]

        In lines 17 and 18 the terms of repayment are made subject to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and in lines 9 and 
    10 it is subject to that same discretion. This is all on page 26. 
    The whole paragraph is subject to discretion and imposes duties 
    upon the Secretary.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, the Committee 
    feels that this provision is in order. It provides only a method by 
    which the appropriation might be expended. I have no further 
    comment to make.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the authority for the language 
    appearing in lines 1 and 2, page 27, which the Chair will quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To remain a charge and lien against their land until paid--

        Is there provision in some existing law creating a lien upon 
    these lands, to which this provision refers?
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: I cannot say there is provision in 
    existing law. The only existing law would be the fact this has been 
    in the bill for several years and, of course, that is not 
    controlling. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    entire paragraph beginning in line 4, page 26, extending down to 
    and including line 9, page 27. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] in making his point of order invited attention to certain 
    language appearing in lines 10 and 11, page 26, with reference to 
    the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
        The Chair has examined the act commonly referred to and known 
    as the Snyder Act and invites attention to section 13 of that act, 
    in which the following appears:

            Expenditures of appropriations by Bureau of Indian Affairs: 
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend 
        such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate for 
        the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the 
        United States for the following purposes: General support and 
        civilization, including education; for industrial assistance 
        and advancement and general administration of Indian problems. 
        Further, for general and incidental expenses in connection with 
        the administration of Indian affairs.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the act to which attention 
    has been invited confers upon the Secretary of the Interior rather 
    broad discretionary authority. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    language to which the gentleman invited attention is not subject to 
    a point of order, but that the language to which the Chair invited 
    the attention of the gentleman from Oklahoma with reference to the 
    provisos does constitute legislation on an appropriation bill not 
    authorized by the rules of the House. It naturally follows that as 
    the point of order has to be sustained as to these two provisos, it 
    has to be sustained as to the entire paragraph. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. This precedent, with reference to language ruled out as 
        legislation, is also discussed in Sec. Sec. 38.14 
        (reimbursements), 46.13 (imposition of lien against lands as 
        legislation), and 62.10 (provisions affecting executive 
        authority), infra.

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

[[Page 5510]]

Indian Agent Under Contract

Sec. 15.27 An appropriation in the Interior Department appropriation 
    bill for the payment of an Indian agent employed under a contract 
    approved by the Secretary was held to be authorized by the Snyder 
    Act and to be merely descriptive of contract authority contained in 
    existing law and therefore not legislative in character.

    On May 14, 1937,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958. A point of order against the following language 
in the bill was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec.  4605, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Utah: Uintah and Ouray, $7,100, of which amount not to exceed 
    $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent employed 
    under a contract, approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make the point of order on the paragraph beginning in line 11 and 
    ending in line 14 of page 57 that there is no authorization in law 
    for the appropriation recommended. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes a 
    point of order against the language appearing on page 57, lines 11 
    to 14, inclusive, on the ground it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not authorized by existing law.
        The Chair has examined the statement in the hearings to which 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts has invited attention, and 
    especially is impressed by the following statement contained in the 
    hearings:

            The contract was approved on March 2, 1937, by the 
        Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the 
        Interior in accordance with sections 2103 and 2106 of the 
        Revised Statutes of the United States.

        This would clearly indicate to the Chair that the law to which 
    reference is here made would be authority for the contract. It 
    appears that the contract was made and the discharge of the duty 
    entered upon under the provisions of the contract.
        Attention is also invited again to the so-called Snyder Act 
    which, among other things, provides for the employment of 
    inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, clerks, field matrons, 
    farmers, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges, and other 
    employees. The language of the bill to which the point of order is 
    directed provides for the sum of $7,100, of which amount not to 
    exceed $3,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent 
    employed under a contract approved by the Secretary of the 
    Interior.
        The Chair is of the opinion that this provision is clearly 
    within the scope of existing law to which attention has been 
    invited, and therefore is not legislation on an appropriation bill 
    in viola

[[Page 5511]]

    tion of the rules of the House. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Reclamation Law--Appropriations From ``General Funds'' Instead of 
    ``Reclamation Fund''

Sec. 15.28 Language in a general appropriation bill appropriating funds 
    ``out of the general funds of the Treasury'' (and not the 
    reclamation fund) for general investigations of proposed federal 
    reclamation projects was held unauthorized by law and to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not in order.

    On Mar. 2, 1938,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, Interior Department appropriations for 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec.  2710, 2711, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general investigations, $200,000, to enable the 
        Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, 
        to carry on engineering and economic investigations of proposed 
        Federal reclamation projects, surveys for reconstruction, 
        rehabilitation, or extension of existing projects and studies 
        of water conservation and development plans, such 
        investigations, surveys, and studies to be carried on by said 
        Bureau either independently, or, if deemed advisable by the 
        Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with State agencies, 
        and other Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, 
        National Resources Committee, and the Federal Power Commission.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the paragraph beginning on line 18, page 85, 
    ending with line 4, page 86, upon the ground that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    authorized in my opinion in the general terms of the Reclamation 
    Act. It has been in effect for many years.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, an appropriation in accordance with 
    the authorization under the Reclamation Act is provided on page 77, 
    line 8, down to and including line 3 on page 78. The appropriation 
    is $25,000. That is the authorized appropriation. I do not believe 
    there is any authority for this out of the general fund of the 
    Treasury.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has examined sections 
    411 and 396, United States Code, title 43, and it seems to the 
    Chair that under the terms of these two sections which are rather 
    broad in their application, this appropriation may be authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Is not that limited to the reclamation fund?
        The Chairman: The Chair was looking particularly with reference 
    to that. The Chair will read the entire section 411:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct, 
        as provided in

[[Page 5512]]

        this chapter, irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and 
        development of waters, including artesian wells, and to report 
        to Congress at the beginning of each regular session as to the 
        results of such examinations and surveys, giving estimates of 
        cost of all contemplated works, the quantity and location of 
        the lands which can be irrigated therefrom, and all facts 
        relative to the practicability of each irrigation project; also 
        the cost of works in process of construction as well as of 
        those which have been completed.

        Mr. Taber: I call the attention of the Chair to the language:

            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the 
        provisions of this chapter--

        That is where the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    and the reclamation fund are defined. That would imply that it is 
    to be done under the provisions of the reclamation fund. It would 
    seem to me that that is the authority under which they operated in 
    providing the appropriation that is to be found on page 77.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Nevada desire to comment 
    on this, or the gentleman from Oklahoma? On consideration it seems 
    to the Chair that this comes out of the general fund in the 
    Treasury and not the reclamation fund, and this is limited in the 
    way suggested by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Scrugham: Section 411 seems to cover the matter.
        The Chairman: If this were out of the reclamation fund, there 
    would be no question about it, but this appropriation is out of the 
    general fund in the Treasury. The Chair is of opinion that the 
    paragraph is subject to the point of order inasmuch as the 
    appropriation is made out of the general fund and not the 
    reclamation fund. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    The ruling above was expressly followed on Apr. 27, 
1945.(1) In the 1945 proceedings, Mr. Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, contended that legislation passed subsequently to the 
1938 ruling did authorize the language in question on the 1945 bill. 
The Chair, however, decided that the provisions objected to on that 
bill still went beyond the language of the authorizing law. The 
proceedings on Apr. 27, 1945, relating to H.R. 3024, an Interior 
Department appropriation, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 3908-10, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General investigations: For engineering and economic 
    investigations of proposed Federal reclamation projects and 
    surveys, investigations, and other activities relating to 
    reconstruction, rehabilitation, extensions, or financial 
    adjustments of existing projects, and studies of water conservation 
    and development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to 
    be carried on by said Bureau either independently, or in 
    cooperation with State agencies and other Federal agencies, 
    including the Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Power Commission, 
    $1,485,000: Provided, That the expenditure of any sums from this 
    appropriation for investigations of any nature requested by States, 
    municipalities, or other interests shall be upon the basis of the

[[Page 5513]]

    State, municipality, or other interest advancing at least 50 
    percent of the estimated cost of such investigations.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all 
    the language in the paragraph starting with line 14 on page 57 and 
    continuing to the words and figures ``$1,485,000,'' for the reason 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and for the further 
    reason that the amount ``$1,485,000'' is beyond the authorization 
    of the statute to wit, title 43, sections 411 and 411a-1 of the 
    United States Code. The sections of the statute to which I refer 
    are as follows:
        The section is as follows:

            411. Surveys for, location, and construction of irrigation 
        works generally--Reports to Congress:
            The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
        make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct 
        as provided in sections 372, 373 . . . and 498, of this title, 
        irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of 
        waters, including artesian wells, and to report to Congress at 
        the beginning of each regular session all results of such 
        examinations and surveys, giving estimates of cost of all 
        contemplated works; the quantity and location of lands which 
        can be irrigated therefrom, and all facts relative to the 
        practicability of each irrigation project; also the cost of 
        works in process of construction as well as those which have 
        been completed.
        Section 411a-1 reads as follows:
        The title provides:

            Appropriations for investigations of the feasibility of 
        reclamation projects: The sum of $125,000 annually is hereby 
        authorized to be provided for cooperative and miscellaneous 
        investigations of the feasibility of reclamation projects.

        Mr. Chairman, I have sought Webster's definition of the words 
    in the statutes, sections 411 and 411a-1 of title 43 of the United 
    States Code. The definitions of the various words are as follows:

            Practicable: That may be practiced or performed; capable of 
        being put into practice, done, or accomplished; capable of 
        being used; readily practiced on; gullible; or pliant.
            Practical: Fit for doing; of, pertaining to, or consisting 
        or manifested in, practice or action; opposed to theoretical, 
        ideal, or speculating; available, usable, or valuable in 
        practice or action; capable of being turned to use or account; 
        useful; skillful or experienced from practice; given or 
        disposed to action as opposed to speculation; capable of 
        applying knowledge to some useful end.
            Practicability: A quality or state of being practicable; 
        feasibility or an instance of it.
            Feasibility: Quality of being feasible; practicability; 
        also that which is feasible.
            Feasible: Capable of being done, executed, or effected; 
        practicable; fit to be used or dealt with successfully; 
        suitable; likely; probable; reasonable.
            Examination: Act of examining, or state of being examined; 
        a search or investigation; scrutiny by study or experiment; a 
        process prescribed or assigned for testing qualification.
            Investigation: Act of investigating; process of inquiring 
        into or following up; research, especially patient or thorough 
        inquiry or examination.
            Survey: Act of surveying; an examination, especially an 
        official exam

[[Page 5514]]

        ination of all the parts or particulars of a thing to ascertain 
        its condition, quantity, or quality; the operation of finding 
        and delineating the contour, dimensions, positions, etc., as of 
        any part of the earth's surface; to inspect; to view 
        attentively, as from a high place; to view with a scrutinizing 
        eye; to examine; to examine as to conditions, situation, value, 
        etc., to examine and ascertain state of.

        Following are Black's Law Dictionary definitions of such terms 
    as appear therein:

            Survey: The process by which a parcel of land is measured 
        and its contents ascertained; also a statement of the result of 
        such survey, with the courses and distances and the quantity of 
        the land. . . . The land included in field notes. . . . 
        (Black's Dictionary, p. 1689.)
            Investigation: To follow up step by step by patient inquiry 
        or observation; to trace or track mentally; to search into; to 
        examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by 
        careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a 
        legal inquiry. . . .

        I find that the language against which I made a point of order 
    is not within the terms of the sections of the statute which I have 
    read. The words I referred to which are beyond the authorization of 
    the statutes are as follows:

            Engineering, economic investigations, and other activities 
        relating to reconstruction, rehabilitation, and extension, or 
        financial adjustments of existing projects and studies.

        Then down further there is a provision in the section that the 
    development plans, such investigations, surveys, and studies to be 
    carried on by said Bureau, ``either independently or in cooperation 
    with State agencies and other Federal agencies, including the Corps 
    of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.'' These provisions 
    to which I have lastly referred are beyond the terms of the statute 
    and beyond the limitation in money as outlined in 411 and 411a-1 of 
    the United States Code.
        So, summarizing, I make the point of order against this 
    language which I have indicated for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill; for the further reason that 
    words go in the bill beyond the amount allowed to be appropriated; 
    and for the further reason that it is in contradiction of existing 
    law as outlined in these two sections.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has made a point of order 
    against the language appearing in the pending bill beginning in 
    line 14 and extending to the colon in line 23 on the grounds stated 
    by him. The gentleman from Oklahoma, chairman of the subcommittee 
    in charge of the pending bill, has conceded the point of order.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that this same question 
    was presented when a point of order was made on March 2, 1938. 
    Without reviewing the decision made at that time, but citing it as 
    a precedent as guiding the Chair in the present instance, the Chair 
    feels that the decision then made is sound and is applicable to the 
    question here presented, and sustains the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the 
    Chair to state that his decision was based on the precedent made in 
    March 1938?
        The Chairman: One of the guiding features of the decision on 
    the pending

[[Page 5515]]

    point of order is the decision appearing on page 2710 and 2711 of 
    volume 83, part 3, of the Congressional Record, Seventy-sixth 
    Congress, Third Session, March 2, 1938.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: My reason for asking the question is 
    that the basic Reclamation Act of August 4, 1939, was passed 
    subsequently to the basis on which that decision was made. In 
    addition to that, the Wheeler-Case Act, as amended in 1940, also 
    placed on the Secretary of the Interior an obligation to make 
    investigations of potential projects. And further, the Flood 
    Control Act of last year, finally passed in December 1944, in 
    several places specifically places on the Secretary of the Interior 
    a responsibility and authority for making such investigations, in 
    cooperation with the Secretary of War and with the States. The law 
    that relates to the revision and adjustment of obligations on 
    irrigation districts was a part of the act passed in 1939. The 5-
    year limitation on that authority expired in 1944, but Congress 
    renewed it in a bill passed this year in the early days of this 
    Congress. All three of these acts specifically authorize the 
    activities on the part of the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
    Secretary of Interior, involved in this point of order, and all 
    these laws were passed subsequent to the precedent which the Chair 
    has cited.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not deem it necessary or 
    appropriate to go into too great detail in deciding the question 
    here presented, but in the opinion of the Chair there is language 
    appearing in that part of the bill against which the point of order 
    was made, which is legislation on an appropriation bill and goes 
    further than the provisions of existing law. As previously stated, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order and the Clerk will read.

Reclamation Law--Submission of Report Constitutes Authorization

Sec. 15.29 An appropriation for the Arizona-Nevada Bullshead Project 
    was held to be authorized by section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 
    1939 which authorized expenditures to be made following submission 
    to Congress of a favorable report on the project's feasibility.

     On May 14, 1941,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4590, an Interior Department appropriation At one 
point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 4047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Bullshead project, Arizona-Nevada, $5,000,000, for the purposes 
    and substantially in accordance with the report thereon heretofore 
    submitted under section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 
    and subject to the terms of the Colorado River compact.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the item contained in this project is not authorized 
    by law. I make the point of order against the entire paragraph 
    which has just been

[[Page 5516]]

    read, beginning in line 22, page 84, and ending in line 2, page 85.
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, the project 
    is fully authorized. It is stated in the hearings, page 729, that 
    the project has been thoroughly investigated and was not authorized 
    at the time of the report, but it has now been authorized in 
    accordance with section 9 of the Reclamation Act of 1939. I call 
    attention to the Congressional Record of April 28, 1941, page 3367, 
    under the head of ``Executive communications,'' item 473, which 
    fully conforms to the requirements of law. The project is 
    authorized.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the hearings at page 731, the last paragraph at the bottom of the 
    page:

            Mr. Page: It has not had as yet the certification of the 
        Secretary and the approval of the President, as required by 
        law.

        The Chairman: (4) What is the date of the page to 
    which the gentleman refers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: The date is April 3, 1941. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order against the paragraph appearing 
    in the pending bill beginning on line 22, page 84, and concluding 
    in line 2, page 85, on the ground that it is not authorized by law. 
    The Chair has examined section 9 of the Reclamation Act, approved 
    August 4, 1939, which appears to be adequate authority for the 
    Secretary of the Interior to recommend the project here in 
    question. That section reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 9. (a) No expenditures for the construction of any new 
        project, new division of a project, or new supplemental works 
        on a project shall be made, nor shall estimates be submitted 
        therefor, by the Secretary until after he has made an 
        investigation thereof and has submitted to the President and to 
        the Congress his report and findings on--
            (1) the engineering feasibility of the proposed 
        construction . . .
            If the proposed construction is found by the Secretary to 
        have engineering feasibility and if the repayable and 
        returnable allocations to irrigation, power, and municipal 
        water supply or other miscellaneous purposes found by the 
        Secretary to be proper, together with any allocation to flood 
        control or navigation made under subsection (b) of this 
        section, equal the total estimated cost of construction as 
        determined by the Secretary, then the new project, new division 
        of a project, or supplemental works on a project, covered by 
        his findings, shall be deemed authorized and may be undertaken 
        by the Secretary. If all such allocations do not equal said 
        total estimated cost, then said new project, new division, or 
        new supplemental works may be undertaken by the Secretary only 
        after provision therefor has been made by act of Congress 
        enacted after the Secretary has submitted to the President and 
        the Congress the report and findings involved.

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that on April 28, 1941, 
    the Secretary of the Interior transmitted to the Congress a 
    communication including the project here in question. The gentleman 
    from New York states that the statements made by the Commissioner 
    of the Bureau of Reclamation were made on April 3. Thereafter, the

[[Page 5517]]

    Secretary of the Interior complied with the provisions of the act 
    by transmitting a communication on April 28, 1941, recommending 
    this project. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the 
    point of order and does overrule the point of order.

Sec. 15.30 The Reclamation Act was held to authorize appropriations for 
    irrigation projects which had been recommended by the Secretary of 
    the Interior and approved by the President of the United States.

    On May 17, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6958, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order was raised against the following paragraph and was 
overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 4680, 4681, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provo River project, Utah, $750,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against this paragraph that the appropriation is not 
    authorized by law. No construction has been started and no law is 
    in force authorizing the project. I call the attention of the 
    Chairman to the latter part of page 245 of the record of the 
    hearings and to the following words:

            Construction program through fiscal year 1937. The starting 
        of actual construction work has been delayed by the necessity 
        of organization and negotiating repayment and water-
        subscription contracts.
            It is expected that bids will be received for the 
        construction--

        And so forth. This means there has been no actual construction 
    on this job and that it has not been authorized by specific 
    legislation. Therefore, I make the point of order against it that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and has not been 
    authorized by law.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair invites attention to the 
    provision of the United States Code in title 43, section 413, which 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Approval of projects by President. No irrigation project 
        shall be begun unless and until the same shall have been 
        recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by 
        direct order of the President of the United States.

        This is the act of June 25, 1910, commonly referred to as the 
    Reclamation Act.

        The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah, or 
    someone else in position to give the information, whether or not 
    this item against which a point of order has been made has been 
    recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by the 
    direct order of the President of the United States, and the Chair 
    would like to have some evidence on this point.
        Mr. [James W.] Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I hold in my 
    hand, in answer to the statement of the Chair, a letter----
        Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Mr. Chairman, I offer such 
    documentary evidence.
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: I am submitting, Mr. Chairman, a letter 
    from Sec

[[Page 5518]]

    retary Ickes, together with the approval of this project by the 
    President.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, if documentary 
    evidence is offered for the purpose of showing compliance with the 
    law, it seems to me it should be presented to the committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair has in mind referring to the document 
    in passing upon the question here presented.
        The Chair feels he has examined sufficient evidence to supply 
    the information requested. Does the gentleman from Utah desire to 
    be heard further?
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: Does the Chair care to hear argument on 
    the other proposition of whether or not work has actually been 
    commenced on this project?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not feel that particular point is 
    involved with respect to this particular item.
        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        There has been presented to the Chair a letter from the 
    Secretary of the Interior, under date of November 13, 1935, which 
    consists of three pages, and the Chair will only refer to the 
    pertinent part of the letter which applies to the particular item 
    under consideration. The letter is addressed to the President of 
    the United States by the Secretary of the Interior. Among other 
    things, it is stated in the letter:

            I recommend that the Provo River project, consisting of the 
        Deer Creek division and the Utah Lake division, be approved and 
        that authority be issued to this Department to proceed with the 
        work and to make contracts and to take any necessary action for 
        the construction of said projects or either division thereof.
            Sincerely yours,
                                            Harold L. Ickes,
                                        Secretary of the Interior.

        There appears on this letter ``Approved November 16, 1935, 
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, President.''
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the evidence is 
    sufficient to meet the requirements in that this item in the 
    pending bill has been recommended by the Secretary of the Interior 
    and approved by the President of the United States, in accordance 
    with the provisions of existing law, as cited by the Chair, 
    appearing in section 413, title 43, of the United States Code. The 
    Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

 Reclamation Law--Incidental Administrative Expenses Authorized

Sec. 15.31 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    proposing an appropriation for certain expenses incidental to the 
    main purpose of carrying out the reclamation law was held to be 
    authorized by that law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation During 
consideration of the bill, a point of order against the following 
amendment was overruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 2655, 2656, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Scrugham [of Nevada]: Page 
    72, be

[[Page 5519]]

    ginning with line 12, insert the following:
        ``Administrative provisions and limitations: For all 
    expenditures authorized by the act of June 17, 1902, and acts 
    amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, known as the 
    reclamation law, and all other acts under which expenditures from 
    said fund are authorized, including not to exceed $100,000 for 
    personal services and $15,000 for other expenses in the office of 
    the chief engineer, $20,000 for telegraph, telephone, and other 
    communication service, $5,000 for photographing and making 
    photographic prints, $41,250 for personal services, and $7,500 for 
    other expenses in the field legal offices; examination of estimates 
    for appropriations in the field; refunds of overcollections and 
    deposits for other purposes; not to exceed $15,000 for 
    lithographing, engraving, printing, and binding; purchase of ice; 
    purchase of rubber boots for official use by employees; maintenance 
    and operation of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger 
    vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for purchase and exchange of horse-
    drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; packing, 
    crating, and transportation (including drayage) of personal effects 
    of employees upon permanent change of station, under regulations to 
    be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; payment of damages 
    caused to the owners of lands or other private property of any kind 
    by reason of the operations of the United States, its officers or 
    employees, in the survey, construction, operation, or maintenance 
    of irrigation works, payment for official telephone service in the 
    field hereafter incurred in case of official telephones installed 
    in private houses when authorized under regulations established by 
    the Secretary of the Interior; not to exceed $1,000 for expenses, 
    except membership fees, of attendance, when authorized by the 
    Secretary, upon meetings of technical and professional societies 
    required in connection with official work of the Bureau; payment of 
    rewards, when specifically authorized by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, for information leading to the apprehension and 
    conviction of persons found guilty of the theft, damage, or 
    destruction of public property. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment upon the ground that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, that it includes items not 
    authorized by law, as, for instance, $5,000 for making photographic 
    prints, not authorized by law in line 20 and in line 22, provision 
    for examination of estimates for appropriations in the field, which 
    is not authorized by law; $15,000 for lithographing and engraving, 
    not authorized by law; the purchase of ice, the purchase of rubber 
    boots for official use by employees, not authorized by law.
         The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    amendment provides for all expenditures authorized by the act of 
    June 17, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary 
    thereto, known as the reclamation law, and all other acts under 
    which expenditures from said fund are authorized, and so forth. The 
    Chair thinks that the items to which the gentleman from New York 
    objects specifically are incidental to the main purpose of carrying

[[Page 5520]]

    out the reclamation law. These incidental items it seems to the 
    Chair are necessary to carry out the major purposes of the 
    reclamation law, and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granting New Authority to Cover Incidental Costs

Sec. 15.32 Language in an appropriation bill permitting the Secretary 
    of the Interior, when in his judgment it is necessary, to utilize 
    appropriations made for the Indian field service to purchase 
    certain equipment for the use of employees and to pay travel 
    expenses of employees on official business was held unauthorized by 
    law.

    On Mar. 1, 1938,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Interior Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 9621), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 2653, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            When, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, it 
        is necessary for accomplishment of the purposes of 
        appropriations herein made for the Indian field service, such 
        appropriations shall be available for purchase of ice, for 
        rubber boots for use of employees, for travel expenses of 
        employees on official business, and for the cost of packing, 
        crating, drayage, and transportation of personal effects of 
        employees upon permanent change of station.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph beginning with line 9, page 71, and 
    ending with line 16, page 71. It is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill; it requires additional duties on the part of the Secretary of 
    the Interior and is not authorized by law.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to 
    be heard.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.

Alaska Reindeer Industry

Sec. 15.33 A direction in law to an executive official to acquire, by 
    purchase or otherwise, ``necessary'' cold storage plants and other 
    equipment for purposes of developing the Alaskan Reindeer industry, 
    was held to permit an appropriation for that object to be 
    implemented in such manner as the official shall determine.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation At one

[[Page 5521]]

point the Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 60, 
    line 23, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner 
    as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable, of reindeer, 
    abattoirs, cold-storage plants, corrals and other buildings, and 
    communication and other equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, 
    as authorized by the act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), 
    $820,000; and for necessary administrative expenses in connection 
    with such purchase and the establishment and development of the 
    reindeer industry for the benefit of the Eskimos and other natives 
    of Alaska, as authorized by said act, including personal services 
    in the District of Columbia (not to exceed $2,300) and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, erection, repair, and maintenance of corrals, 
    fences, and other facilities, $250,000; in all $1,070,000, to be 
    immediately available: Provided, That under this appropriation not 
    exceeding an average of $4 per head shall be paid for reindeer 
    purchased from nonnative owners: Provided further, That the 
    foregoing limitation shall not apply to the purchase of reindeer 
    located on Nunivak Island.''
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, unauthorized by law, and it 
    delegates to the Department additional authority which it does not 
    now have. . . .
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from California is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carter: The opening sentence of the amendment reads:

            For the purchase in such manner as the Secretary of the 
        Interior shall deem advisable.

        Now, certainly there is nothing in the statute that gives the 
    Secretary of the Interior that much discretion. In addition to 
    that, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the proviso in the amendment which reads as the proviso in the 
    bill, which is clearly legislation. Therefore I say the point of 
    order must be sustained against the proposed amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The act of September 
    1, 1937, on which the appropriation contained in this paragraph is 
    based, reads in part as follows:

            Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized 
        and directed to acquire, in the name of the United States, by 
        purchase or other lawful means, including exercises of power of 
        eminent domain, for and on behalf of the Eskimos and other 
        natives of Alaska, reindeer, reindeer range, equipment, 
        abattoirs, cold-storage plants, warehouses and other property, 
        real or personal, the acquisition of which he determines to be 
        necessary to the effectuation of the purposes of this act.

        This seems to be a broad, all-inclusive grant of power. The 
    language used in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma merely restates, in slightly different words, the 
    authorization contained in the act of September 1, 1937.
        The proviso to which the gentleman from California [Mr. Carter] 
    refers ap

[[Page 5522]]

    pears to the Chair to be nothing more than a limitation, in the 
    strictest sense of the word.
        For these reasons the Chair overrules both points of order.

Bituminous Coal Commission

Sec. 15.34 Language permitting an appropriation to be used for public 
    instruction and information deemed necessary by the Bituminous Coal 
    Commission, in the course of conducting research on coal, was held 
    authorized by a law conferring broad discretionary authority on the 
    Commission to undertake acts deemed ``necessary'' for coal 
    promotion.

    On Feb. 28, 1938,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9621, an Interior Department appropriation. A point of 
order was raised against the following paragraph in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 2553, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses: For all necessary expenditures of the 
    National Bituminous Coal Commission in performing the duties 
    imposed upon said Commission by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 
    approved April 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 72), including personal services 
    and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere . . . 
    miscellaneous items, including those for public instruction and 
    information deemed necessary by the Commission; and not to exceed 
    $8,500 for purchase and exchange of newspapers, law books, 
    reference books, and periodicals, $2,700,000.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language beginning with the word ``including'' in 
    line 11 on page 11, and running down through the word 
    ``Commission'', in line 13, that it is not authorized by law, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and requires additional 
    duties of the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will call attention to the fact that volume 50, 
    Statutes at Large, page 74, section 2, of the Bituminous Coal 
    Commission Act, the last paragraph, contains this provision:

            The Commission is hereby authorized to initiate, promote, 
        and conduct research designed to improve standards and methods 
        used in the mining, preparation, conservation, distribution, 
        and utilization of coal and the discovery of additional uses 
        for coal, and for such purposes shall have authority to assist 
        educational, governmental, and other research institutions in 
        conducting research in coal, and to do such other acts and 
        things as it deems necessary and proper to promote the use of 
        coal and its derivatives.

        It seems to the Chair that clearly the appropriation to which 
    the point of order is directed is authorized by the provisions of 
    the paragraph just read.

[[Page 5523]]

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    further.
        Mr. Taber: It seems to me the language in this bill is much 
    broader than the language in the enabling act, in that this item 
    may permit action way beyond the range of the enabling act. With 
    reference to particular activities like research with respect to 
    coal, which the Commission may conduct, the Commission undoubtedly 
    has that power; but the language in the provision against which I 
    have made the point of order is not limited to the scope of the 
    act. Under it the Commission may go into any conceivable subject. 
    Therefore, it seems to me this particular language is way beyond 
    the scope of the authorization act. If this language were limited 
    to the scope of the authorization act, of course, it would be in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is unable to see how broader terms 
    could be used than are used in the enabling act, which reads:

            To assist educational, governmental, and other research 
        institutions in conducting research in coal, and to do such 
        other acts and things as it deems necessary and proper to 
        promote the use of coal and its derivatives.

        This provision covers not only educational, governmental, and 
    other research institutions, but such other acts as the Commission 
    may deem necessary.
        It seems to the Chair the language of the act is fully as broad 
    as the terms embodied in the pending bill, and, therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.