DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 307

 Mr. Fz.LrCHm. Referring to the question propounded by the Senator from
Colorado [Mr. Adams], the amendment provides for an increase of $20,000,000.
The Budget estimate was for $29,000,00, covering five items authorized by the
President-namely, the Passamaquoddy project in Maine, the Atlantic-Gulf
ship canal in Florida, a third project in New Mexico, a fourth project in West
Virginia, and a fifth project in Mississippi. Those were the five projects to be
taken care of by the $29,000,000, which was not included by the House. The
amendment which I have offered eliminates the first project, the Passama-
quoddy project in Maine, because it was not examined by the War Department
engineers. The amendment would limit the appropriation to taking care of the
other four projects which I have mentioned.
 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield?
 Mr. CONNALLY. Certainly.
 Mr. ADAMs. We recognize the Budget Bureau has included the first item.
My inquiry is whether or not there may not be other projects which come
within the language of the amendment but which were not estimated for.
 Mr. FLmrcHX. No; the language of the amendment covers these certain
projects and only these. They have been examined by the War Department
engineers and are included in the Budget estimate.
 Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, in conclusion let me briefly recapitulate. The
 contention of the Senator from Texas is that the appropriation proposed in the
 amendment of the Senator from Florida is in order if it is made according to
 some existing law or some existing treaty or some resolution previously adopted
 by the Senate. In addition to those classifications are two other classifica-
 tions; that is, moved by a standing or select committee or proposed in pur-
 suance of an estimate. If the amendment falls within either one of those
 five classifications, it is in order. I submit that it is in order.
 Mr. CLxaS. Mr. President, of course, I cannot hope to equal the distin-
 guished Senator from Texas [Mr. Connally] in speaking ex cathedra or with
 dogmatic authority as to what is sound argument and what is not, but I shall
 undertake to make my contention plain enough so that even the Senator from
 Kentucky [Mr. Logan] will be able to understand it.
 Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. CLrAK. I yield.
 Mr. CONNATLY. I apologize to the Senator from Missouri, but when I first
 rose I stated that I did not claim to be a parliamentarian.
 Mr. CLARK. I think the Senator completely demonstrated that in the course
 of his argument.
 Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from Texas is willing to have it determined by
 the ruling of the Chair.
 Mr. LOGAN. Mr. President-
 The PRESIDIxN OFFrca. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator
 from Kentucky?
 Mr. CLArK. I yield.
 Mr. LOGAN. Since the Senator from Missouri is going to make it so clear
 that even the Senator from Kentucky will understand it, may I ask that he
 use simple and childlike language? [Laughter.]
 Mr. CIARK. I shall try to do so in order that the Senator may be able to
 comprehend it.
 May I say in passing, because I might forget it later, that the contention of
 the Senator from Texas [Mr. Connally] that to say that rule XVI puts any
 limitation on the right of Congress or the Senate to make an appropriation
 would constitute an admission that the Senate cannot trust itself, is to contend
 that the Senate ought to repeal all of its rules and proceed without any rules
 whatever, on the theory that the Senate can trust itself; that we as a nation
 ought to repeal all existing laws on the theory that we as a nation may proceed
 without any laws or rules because we can trust ourselves.
 For the benefit of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Logan], I will say again,
 because evidently the Senator from Texas [Mr. Connally] did not seem to
 comprehend it, it has never been contended on the part of myself or, so far as
 I know, anyone else that the allocation made by the President for the Florida
 ship canal or for the Passamaquoddy project or the St. Louis project, in which
 I am interested personally, or any other Public Works project was not made
 in accordance with the law. So the contention of my distinguished friend
 from Texas, that before we appropriate only $4,800,000,000 instead of $40,000,-
 000,000 or $400,000,000,000, as the case might be, we ought to go into court and
 determine the constitutionality of the $4,800,000,000, is entirely beside the point.