300 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 Mr. BAaxKrr. There is never any obligation on the part of Congress, moral
 or legal, to appropriate more money than it provides in any appropriation bill,
 even though it is for a project which Congress Itself has authorized, because
 Congress can authorize projects and appropriate money partly to build them,
 and then refuse to appropriate any more; and there Is no remedy for that.
 That is a thing which sometimes happens.
 Mr. CLAX&. The Senator knows, as he has been very much interested in it,
 that in the city in which I reside there is a project for which the President made
 an allocation of funds for as much of the project as could be completed in 1 year,
 and left a very large portion of the project unallotted for, and very properly,
 because it could not be completed within a year. I hope that some day, and as
 soon as practicable, Congress may authorize the completion of that project;
 but because I am very hopeful that the Congress in its wisdom may see fit to
 pass substantive legislation authorizing the completion of that project, it has
 never occurred to me for a moment to offer an amendment as a rider to a
 general appropriation bill for the completion of the project.
 Mr. BAxKLLT. I do not entirely agree with the Senator. Of course, I realize
 that if, either out of funds available, or other funds which may be appropriated,
 the President does not allocate sufficient money to complete that project, and
 all other projects begun under the $4,800,000,000, it will then be up to Congress
 to decide whether it will complete them by additional appropriations.
 Mr. CLAa. I agree entirely with the Senator from Kentucky on that proposi-
 tion; but it is the right of Congress to decide whether it wishes to appropriate
 the necessary money to complete the project.
 Mr. BAnKaU. The decision ought to be rendered on the merits of the case.
 Mr. CLAx. I agree with the Senator.
 Mr. BAzuzXr. It ought not to be rendered on a point of order. My contention
 is that this is a new situation, and not covered by any ruling of the Chair here-
 tofore. Where the President authorizes the beginning of a project, which he
 had a legal right to do, it is a legal project, although he cannot spend a dollar
 beyond the money already appropriated. But having established it legally,
 and within the authority conferred upon him, a point of order would not lie
 against the authority of the President in establishing it, although the Senate
 or the House might vote down an appropriation for which an estimate had
 been made.
 Mr. CLAax. Let me say to the Senator from Kentucky that, so far as I know,
 no one has thought of contending that a point of order would le against the
 original expenditure. My only proposition is that an estimate based simply
 on an allocation in a blanket $4,800,000,000 appropriation act, made on his own
 motion by the Director of the Budget, does not relieve the amendment from its
 susceptibility to a point of order, and does not constitute authority of law.
 Mr. BAx*um. I do not know how I shall vote on the Florida project-
 Mr. CLAK. Nor do I.
 Mr. BAXszzr. I am not interested in it one way or the other; I may vote
 against it when it comes before the Senate; but my point is that the project
 having been established by the President under the authority of Congress, a
 point of order does not lie now on the ground that it was not established law-
 fully, that it was not authorized, although the expenditure of the entire amount
 might. not be authorized under the blanket appropriation. I think the status
 of the project cures any lack of specific authority by Congress to appropriate
 for it.
 Mr. CLama. Perhaps I did not make my contention perfectly clear to the Sen-
 ator from Kentucky. My contention is not that the original allocation was
 unlawful, or without authority of law, or that the expenditures made up to date
 have been without authority of law, because the President had specific authority,
 in the $4800,000,000 appropriation act to spend the money for practically any
 purposes for which he saw ft to spend it My point is not that the original
 expenditure was unlawful but that further expenditure will be unlawful unless
 specifically authorized by Congress.
 Mr. THOMus of Oklahoma. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield
to me?
 Mr. CLaWK. I yield.
 Mr. ToxMAs of Oklahoma. Let me ask a hypothetical question and see if I
understand correctly the position of the Senator from Missouri. In the event the
Senate should sustain the amendment-in other words, hold that the point of
order Is not well taken-in the event that the Senate and the Congress should