[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[F. Permissible Limitations on Use of Funds]
[Â§ 76. Interior]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6462-6473]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
               F. PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS
 
Sec. 76. Interior

Reclamation Projects; Equating Expenses to Repayments

Sec.  76.1 A provision that no part of an appropriation shall be 
    available for operation and maintenance of any reclamation projects 
    in excess of the amount of repayments made pursuant to law during a 
    current fiscal year was held to be in order as a limitation

[[Page 6463]]

    restricting the availability of funds and not requiring the use of 
    repayments.

    On May 1, 1951,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation bill. A 
point of order against an amendment to the bill was overruled as 
indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 4655, 4656, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         operation and maintenance

        For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or parts 
    thereof and of other facilities, as authorized by law . . . 
    $15,385,000, of which not to exceed $12,883,900 shall be derived 
    from the reclamation fund and not to exceed $1,671,000 shall be 
    derived from the Colorado River dam fund. . . .

    Mr. John Phillips, of California, offered an amendment, which was 
read. The following proceedings then took place:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John R.] Murdock [of Arizona] to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 16, at the end 
        of the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips insert: ``Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be available 
        for operation and maintenance of any irrigation works in excess 
        of repayments during the current fiscal year pursuant to law.''

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in effect 
    legislation on an appropriation bill, and therefore a violation of 
    rule 21.
        I make the further point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona to my amendment 
    purports to be a limitation but is in effect an authorization. 
    There is no authorization at the present time for expenditures, 
    from the funds to which the gentleman refers, for operation and 
    maintenance of these certain projects. Therefore, if the gentleman 
    from Arizona offers an amendment which says, ``You must not spend 
    more than that amount of money,'' then it is in effect not a 
    limitation but an authorization for the expenditure of money to 
    that point. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock] offers an amendment 
    which the Clerk has reported to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Phillips). The gentleman from 
    California makes a point of order against the amendment for the 
    reasons which he has stated.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California. The Chair has concluded that the 
    amendment is clearly a limitation, negative in character on an 
    appropriation bill. The amendment limits in a negative manner the 
    amount which can be spent only during the fiscal year covered by 
    the bill presently before the Committee.

[[Page 6464]]

        The device by which the limitation of the amount is determined 
    is the extent to which the law is complied with. It does not add to 
    the requirements of any law; it does not require compliance with 
    any law; all it does is to say that you may spend this 
    appropriation up to the amount that the law requiring repayment is 
    complied with. The amendment therefore is in order and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from California.

Qualification of Employees in Bureau of Reclamation

Sec.  76.2 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    proposing that no part of the appropriation for the Bureau of 
    Reclamation shall be used for salaries of persons in certain 
    positions who are not qualified engineers with at least 10 years' 
    experience was held to be a proper limitation and in order.

    On May 27, 1948,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6705. An amendment was offered by Mr. Alfred J. 
Elliott, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 6630, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 38, line 21, insert after the colon the following: 
    ``Provided further, That no part of any appropriation for the 
    Bureau of Reclamation contained in this act shall be used for the 
    salaries and expenses of a person in any of the following positions 
    in the Bureau of Reclamation, or of any person who performs the 
    duties of any such position, who is not a qualified engineer with 
    at least 10 years' engineering and administrative experience: (1) 
    Commissioner of Reclamation; (2) Assistant Commissioner of 
    Reclamation; and (3) Regional Director of Reclamation.''
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it is 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill, not a limitation. The mere 
    use of the words ``Provided further'' does not mean it makes 
    everything in order. This is legislation relating to the 
    requirements that must be met by one person or certain employees of 
    the Bureau of Reclamation before they may hold office or be 
    appointed.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Elliott: No.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    a limitation, that it refers to a part of this appropriation; 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Territories and Former Possessions

Sec.  76.3 A provision preventing the expenditure of certain funds 
    appropriated for sala

[[Page 6465]]

    ries, administrative expenses, travel, or other purposes in any 
    territory where refunds of excise-tax collections were being made 
    to such territory was held to be a proper limitation restricting 
    the availability of funds and in order on an appropriation bill.

        On Mar. 7, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 8745, an Interior Department appropriation. The 
    Clerk read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 2542, 2543, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John G.] Alexander [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 143, after line 14, insert a new section to be known as 
    section 6, to read as follows:
        ``No funds appropriated herein shall be expended for salaries, 
    administrative expenses, travel, or other purposes in any Territory 
    or former possession where refunds of excise-tax collections are 
    being made to such Territory or former possession.''
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it constitutes legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to me that this 
    is legislation that comes within the previous rulings of the Chair, 
    because it is a limitation and therefore comes under the Holman 
    rule. . . .
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, this is not germane 
    because it refers to appropriations not covered by this bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair invites attention to the 
    fact that the bill does carry certain appropriations for the 
    Philippine Islands, the Virgin Islands, and insular possessions. 
    The Chair therefore is under the impression that the amendment is 
    germane to the provisons of the pending bill, and the Chair is of 
    the opinion that the amendment offered is in the form of a 
    limitation and would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is overruled.

National Park Roads

Sec. 76.4 In an appropriation bill a provision that none of the funds 
    in the bill shall be used for maintenance of roads, other than 
    parkways, outside the boundaries of national parks was held in 
    order as a limitation restricting the availability of funds.

    On Apr. 6, 1954,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8680, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 4721, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Physical Facilities

        For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
    rehabilitation of roads (including furnishing special road 
    maintenance service to defense

[[Page 6466]]

    trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), trails, buildings, 
    utilities, and other physical facilities essential to the operation 
    of areas administered pursuant to law by the National Park Service, 
    $8 million: Provided That none of the funds herein appropriated 
    shall be used for maintenance of roads, other than national 
    parkways, outside the boundaries of national parks and monuments.
        Mr. [Wesley A.] D'Ewart [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language on page 24, starting with the 
    word ``Provided'' on line 11 and ending on line 14. . . .
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Even though such expenditures 
    are authorized by law, the fact still remains that you can provide 
    a limitation on an appropriation bill, and I so contend. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair has carefully studied the point of order submitted by the 
    gentleman from Montana (Mr. D'Ewart). The Congress, although it is 
    authorized to make appropriations, can also deny the use of such 
    appropriations by proper limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that this is a limitation and not legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Limiting Draft Deferments

Sec. 76.5 An amendment to the Interior Department appropriation bill 
    providing that none of the funds therein shall be used to pay the 
    salary of any person who is qualified physically for military duty 
    and who received a deferment under specified circumstances was held 
    a proper limitation and in order.

    On Apr. 27, 1944,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4679. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 3757, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: On page 
    107, after section 10, insert a new section, numbered section 11, 
    as follows:
        ``Sec. 11. No part of the money appropriated in this act shall 
    be used to pay the salary of any male person between the ages of 18 
    and 30 years who is physically and mentally qualified for military 
    duty, as shown by his selective-service classification, and who has 
    been deferred from military duty, either at his own request or the 
    request of the Secretary of the Interior, for reasons other than 
    dependency or as necessary to war production, and who, 30 days 
    after the approval of this act, still retains such deferment.''
        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. In 
    the opinion of the Chair the amendment is a limitation, and the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6467]]

Limitation Applicable on Condition Subsequent--Unconstitutionality of 
    Authorization Law

Sec. 76.6 To a paragraph appropriating money for the National 
    Bituminous Coal Commission, an amendment providing that if the act 
    appropriated for is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, 
    none of the money provided in the bill shall thereafter be spent, 
    was held in order as a limitation.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10464, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 994, 996, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    National Bituminous Coal Commission

        Salaries and expenses, National Bituminous Coal Commission: For 
    all necessary expenditures of the National Bituminous Coal 
    Commission in performing the duties imposed upon said Commission by 
    the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, including personal 
    services and rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
    traveling expenses, contract stenographic reporting services, 
    stationery and office supplies and equipment, printing and binding, 
    and not to exceed $2,500 for newspapers, reference books, and 
    periodicals, fiscal year 1936, $400,000: Provided, That this 
    appropriation shall be available for obligations incurred on and 
    after September 21, 1935, including reimbursement to other 
    appropriations of the Department of the Interior for obligations 
    incurred on account of said Commission. . . .
        Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bacon: Page 22, line 11, after the 
        word ``Commission'', insert ``Provided, That if the Bituminous 
        Coal Conservation Act of 1935 is declared to be 
        unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, no 
        money herein provided shall thereafter be spent, and all money 
        herein appropriated and unexpended shall be immediately covered 
        back into the Treasury.''

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum: This seems to me to be legislation undertaking to 
    effect a limitation. If, of course, the Supreme Court declares the 
    act unconstitutional expenditures under it will cease and no money 
    may thereafter be expended under the act.
        Mr. Bacon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is an amendment 
    that comes within the Holman rule, that it is a limitation saving 
    money for the Treasury of the United States.
        Mr. Woodrum: But it is made contingent on something that may or 
    may not happen.

[[Page 6468]]

        Mr. Bacon: Yes; it is made contingent on something happening.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, is the gentleman suggesting that the Congress 
    should hint the unconstitutionality of a law before it is passed on 
    by the Supreme Court?
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the Holman rule 
    does not necessarily apply. The Chair is of the opinion, however, 
    that the amendment is a limitation. The purport of the amendment 
    taken as a whole impresses the Chair as being a limitation.
        Mr. Woodrum: May I call the attention of the Chair to the fact 
    that the amendment means hereafter, any time in the future, any 
    appropriation that hereafter may be made, and that it is not 
    confined to the appropriation in this bill?
        The Chairman: Yes; that is the very point on which the Chair's 
    decision turns. The Chair interprets the words used in the 
    amendment to mean that it refers to the appropriation provided in 
    this bill. It would, therefore, be a limitation on the 
    appropriation here provided. The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Consultant Salaries

Sec. 76.7 A provision in a general appropriation bill authorizing 
    expenditures of funds provided in the bill for temporary services 
    of consultants at rates not in excess of $100 per day was held to 
    be in order as a limitation which did not set rates of pay but 
    merely restricted use of funds in the bill.

        On Apr. 24, 1951,(14) The Committee of the Whole was 
    considering H.R. 3790, an Interior Department appropriation bill. 
    The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4307, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         administrative provisions

        Appropriations of the Bonneville Power Administration shall be 
    available to carry out all the duties imposed upon the 
    Administrator pursuant to law, including not to exceed $40,000 for 
    services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 
    (5 U.S.C. 55a), including such services at rates not to exceed $100 
    per diem for individuals; purchase of not to exceed 16 passenger 
    motor vehicles of which 12 shall be for replacement only; and 
    purchase (not to exceed 2) of aircraft. . . .
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language appearing in the bill beginning with 
    line 24, page 5, and continuing through to line 12, page 6, on the 
    ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, all of the 
    language contained in the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Kansas is authorized by law under the Bonneville Project Act 
    and other acts and amendments to the original Bonneville Project 
    Act and may be found in Sixteenth United States Code, section 825. 
    For example, there is contained in the area covered by the 
    gentleman's

[[Page 6469]]

    point of order the authority with reference to the purchase of 
    automobiles. This is contained in general authorizing legislation 
    that is applicable to all departments of Government.
        The Chairman: (15) Will the gentleman from Kansas be 
    more specific with reference to the language that he deems to be 
    legislation on an appropriation bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, the language in line 4, 
    beginning with the word ``including'' and ending with the word 
    ``individuals'' in line 5 is certainly without authorization and 
    for that reason the entire paragraph, in my judgment, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and not authorized.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, in response to the 
    gentleman's contention at that point, may I say that Public Law 600 
    of the Seventy-ninth Congress specifically authorizes the 
    Department to do this very thing.
        The Chairman: It authorizes the department to pay at the rate 
    of $100 per diem?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: That is right.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Washington explain to the 
    Chair the reason for carrying it in the appropriation bill itself, 
    if it is authorized?
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: Unless the Committee on 
    Appropriations each year authorizes a specific amount, they have no 
    authority to spend any money for this purpose. In other words, 
    existing law gives the department the authority to pay per diem 
    expenses to individuals but the amount as to what should be paid is 
    left to the discretion of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
    committee from time to time has changed the amount. I will be glad 
    to read from Fifth United States Code, section 55a, as follows:

            The head of any department, when authorized in an 
        appropriation or other act, may procure the temporary (not in 
        excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants or organizations thereof.

        I think that section clearly leaves it to Congress, and 
    Congress has to act each year for the simple reason that the 
    authority to make the payment is limited to a maximum of 1 year.
        Mr. Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, may I add this further? It 
    would occur to me then it is an attempt by law to change the Rules 
    of the House and that certainly cannot be done. So, we still have 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: For the information of the gentleman from Kansas 
    the Chair will read from the United States Code, title 5, on page 
    79, section 35a:

            Temporary employment of experts or consultants; rate of 
        compensation:
            The head of any department, when authorized in an 
        appropriation or other act, may procure the temporary (not in 
        excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants or organizations thereof, including stenographic 
        reporting services, by contract and in such cases such service 
        shall be without regard to the civil service and classification 
        laws (but as to agencies subject to sections . . . at rates not 
        in excess of the per diem equivalent of the highest rate 
        payable under said sections, unless other rates are 
        specifically provided in the appropriation or other law) and 
        except in the

[[Page 6470]]

        case of stenographic reporting services by organizations 
        without regard to section 5 of title 41.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Might I be allowed to make a 
    suggestion, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
        Mr. Taber: It is the duty of the legislative committees to 
    bring in legislation that will fix the rate of compensation. A 
    limitation by a Committee on Appropriations can be made restricting 
    the amount below the statutory amount. But when you come by a 
    statute to authorize the Committee on Appropriations to bring in 
    legislation, it is utterly void, because the rules of the House 
    provide that the Committee on Appropriations shall not bring in 
    legislation. This not being a limitation or anything of that kind, 
    it is clearly legislation and not in order on this bill.
        Mr. Jackson of Washington: If the Chair will permit me to speak 
    further, of course the answer to the statement of the gentleman 
    from New York is that the argument does not apply when the 
    Committee on Appropriations has been authorized by another basic 
    law, and that law itself contemplates the very possibility which 
    has arisen here, namely, that from time to time rates would have to 
    be fixed each year as to the amount that should be paid on a per 
    diem basis. The argument the gentleman from New York has advanced 
    has no application in this instance because specific authorizing 
    legislation has covered this part of it.
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands, there is no per diem 
    ceiling fixed in the provision to which the Chair has alluded. The 
    gentleman from New York mentions a ceiling, and then the authority 
    of the committee to place a limitation under that ceiling. Does the 
    gentleman from New York know of some ceiling provided in law for 
    per diem pay?
        Mr. Taber: I do not, but there is legislation to fix the rate 
    of pay, and the authority contained in the legislation would not 
    give the Committee on Appropriations jurisdiction because the 
    jurisdiction of the committee is governed by the rules of the 
    House. You cannot change the rules of the House by legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct that you 
    cannot change the rules of the House by legislation, but the 
    language referred to by the Chair seems to authorize beyond any 
    doubt the per diem payment by this service to individuals. There 
    does not appear to be any ceiling fixed upon what the payment per 
    day may be. So it appears to the Chair that the language contained 
    in the bill in line 4 through ``individuals'' in line 5 on page 6 
    is actually in the form of a limitation. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Kansas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair by citing the above statute was 
not ruling that the language of that law specifically permitted the 
Committee on Appropriations in a general appropriation bill to fix per 
diem rates of pay--rather that a negative limitation setting a ceiling 
on use of those funds for per diem pay was in order under Rule XXI 
clause 2, as a limitation.

[[Page 6471]]

Reindeer Industry

Sec. 76.8 To an appropriation for the purchase of reindeer, an 
    amendment limiting the purchase to an average price of $4 per head 
    was held to be a limitation restricting the availability of funds 
    in the bill and in order.

    On Mar. 15, 1939,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4852, an Interior Department appropriation. The Clerk 
read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reindeer industry, Alaska: For the purchase, in such manner as 
    the Secretary of the Interior shall deem advisable and without 
    regard to sections 3709 and 3744 of the Revised Statutes, of 
    reindeer, abattoirs, cold-storage plants . . . and communication 
    and other equipment, owned by nonnatives in Alaska, as authorized 
    by the act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . 
    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 paragraph on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill unauthorized by law. In fact, 
    the language clearly indicates that it repeals the specific 
    provisions of existing law as incorporated in sections 3709 and 
    3744 of the Revised Statutes.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma: No; I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following 
    amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. 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 . . . as authorized by the act of September 1, 1937 
        (50 Stat. 900), $820,000 . . . 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. 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. Johnson of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is 
    unnecessary

[[Page 6472]]

    to make an extended argument, as I am sure the Chair is fully 
    advised and ready to rule. Certainly there is no question but that 
    this item is clearly authorized by existing law. Authority will be 
    found in the act of September 1, 1937, Fiftieth Statutes, page 900. 
    It plainly authorizes an appropriation of $2,000,000. I call the 
    attention of the Chair to section 16 which reads as follows:

            The sum of $2,000,000 is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated for the use of the Secretary of the Interior in 
        carrying out the provisions of this act.

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: What more authority do you 
    want? That is enough.
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized.
        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 appears 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.

Sec. 76.9 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 the object to be 
    implemented in such manner as the official shall determine.

        The proceedings of Mar. 15, 1939,(18) are discussed 
    in Sec. 76.8, supra. At

[[Page 6473]]

    issue was the amendment offered by Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 2789, 2790, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------