A law which authorizes the expenditure of funds, but which does not appropriate those funds authorizes the department, agency or person to whom the authorization is directed to take all necessary steps to accomplish the terms of the law except the

1 Guam Code Ann. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CH. 7 CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CODE

obligation or expenditure of the funds which have been authorized, but not appropriated.

SOURCE: A new Section.

COMMENT: Up to the present, there has been much doubt as to the effect, if any, of a bill authorizing an program and authorizing, but not appropriating funds to carry out that program. In many instances such bills have been ignored completely. In other instances hardship has been caused to the agency receiving the authorization because an obligation was made and lesser funds were appropriated than were obligated under the authorization. This section is designed to correct both extremes, guiding both the Legislature and the affected parties in their actions under a fund authorization,

Thus, if funds were authorized to finance a program granting some benefit to a group who met certain statutory criteria the designated agency could commence screening to determine those who meet the criteria, up to the ceiling established by the authorization. Then the agency would present to the legislature those who had qualified so that the Legislature can appropriate the exact amount required. See Train v. City of New York, 95
S.Ct. 839, 420 U.S. 35 (1974).

The Attorney General has suggested that the Legislature be required to appropriate funds when creating new burdens on existing budgets. While this would be a good idea, this type of requirement cannot be placed in law because, in reality there would be so many amendments to the requirement that the code section would become obsolete shortly after its passage.