Speech #630411447

I believe in making appropriations .specifically. and not in lump sums. so far as is possible. but I .notice that the great Committee on Appropriations. -which holds .a membership which can not be excelled or probably equalled -in this House. and which very readily criticizes the agricultural bill. which carries a total in the neighborhood of $20.000.000 or .$25.000.000that great committee brings in the sundry civil bill and the legislative bill with lump appropriations galore. Here is -a lumpsum .appropriatiod in the sundry civil bill of :this year. $2.110.000 in one lump for the LifeSaving Service. $2.350.000 in one lump for the RevenueCutter Service. $1.300.000 for salaries. and so forth. in the Bureau of Engraving .and Printing. $1.625.000 in a lump .sum for the wages of plate printers. :and so forth. in the Bureau of Engraving and. Print:ing: $1.0.150.000 in a lump sum. i a short paragraph. for defraying the expenses of the collection of customs. $2.275.000 in a lump for the Lighthouse Service. $2.649.500 in a lump. :in a short paragraph. for the Immigration Service. Why. if such appropriations as those had :been included in lump sums by the Committee on Agriculture. not only the gentlemen on the :Committee on Appropriations but -all the rest of the House would have thrown a fit. But they condone great appropriations in lumps. which ought to be segregated In their own committee. and then they find grievous fault with -the Committee on Agriculture.