DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 299

 Without going, as I say, into the merits of the desirability of the Florida Canal,
we are all familiar with the outline of the facts-that out of funds which were
authorized by law to a specific amount, granted to the President in his discretion,
the President allocated some $5,000,000 for preliminary work upon a project
which has been variously estimated to cost from $150,000,000 to $350,000,000.
There are many other projects in the same situation, some in my State; but
for the Senate to hold that with that allocation, undoubtedly made in accordance
with law and with funds properly within his control, the Director of the Budget
has the authority or the right, either under the law or under the rules of the
Senate, further to increase the authorization beyond that contained in the
$4,800,000,000 act, is to say that Congress, having appropriated $4,800,000,000
in an emergency, the Director of the Budget by his own act has authority to
increase that authorization from $4,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000, or, for that
matter, to $400,000,000,000, if the Director should see fit to do so!
 I submit that Senators ought to give very careful consideration to the point
of order raised, not with respect to the merits of the Florida Canal project,
which will properly be determined when substantive legislation authorizing such
a project is properly brought in and considered by the Senate, not influenced by
our affection for the Senator from Florida, whom we all deeply respect and
admire, but considering the precedent which is sought to be set of raping the
Congress of its jurisdiction, jurisdiction which is only that of Congress, to
authorize appropriations, and conferring the jurisdiction upon an administrative
oflical, namely, on the Director of the Budget.
 Mr. BARKLET. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. CLARK. I yield.
 Mr. BABKLEr. The situation which arises in connection with the Florida ship
 canal may arise as to many other projects which have been or may be begun.
 Mr. CLARK. That is true.
 Mr. BAKtLTr. Does the Senator contend that the President did not have the
 lawful authority under the blanket appropriation of $4,800,000,000 to designate
 certain projects which should be either completed or begun out of that $4,800,-
 000,000? And if he had the authority under the act appropriating the money to
 establish certain projects, does not that itself cure any defect by reason of a
 lack of specific authority given by the Congress for the appropriation of money
 for the project?
 Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, it is my contention, and I think the contention
cannot be successfully attacked as a legal proposition, that neither the President
nor the Director of the Budget had a right to authorize the expenditure of, or to
expend one penny in excess of, the $4,800,000,000 appropriated by Congress. It
was perfectly proper and perfectly legal for the President to authorize the
expenditure of any of that sum in any manner he might see fit to choose, under
the blanket authority, but, as I said a moment ago, simply because $10 might be
spent on a $10,000,000 project, to say that that was an authorization which
gave the Director of the Budget the authority or the legal right to make an
estimate in regard to it is simply to extend the appropriation of the $4,800,-
000,000 without any limit whatsoever.
 Mr. BAamzJr. I grant that the Senator is correct in stating that neither the
 President nor the Director of the Budget-and, of course, in this matter it is
 the President, because the Director of the Budget is simply acting under his
 direction-
 Mr. CLIAx. The Director of the Budget made the estimate. That is the
 theory on which the amendment is being offered.
 Mr. BArKIzY. He does not authorize the expenditure. Assuming that the
 President had the lawful power to designate this project, or any other project
 which might have been completed out of the $4,800,000,000, or might have been
 started, if the establishment of the project itself was lawful, then is it neces-
 sary to secure a specific act of Congress, legitimatizing the authority on the
 part of the President?
 Mr. CLaRK. I think unquestionably it is, because unless my contention be
 correct, there is absolutely no limit which can be conceived of to the extent to
 which the Treasury of the United States might be subjected to expense because
 of the original appropriation of $4,800,000,000. When we voted for the $4,800,-
 000,000 appropriation we were voting for the greatest expenditure of money
 ever made in peacetime by any nation on the face of the earth, but it certainly
 was not our intention to obligate the Government of the United States-at
 least, it was not mine when I voted for the bill--to obligate the Government
 of the United States to expend one penny more than the sum carried in the bilL
 82710-46--20