WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR. GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 January 17, 1980 The Honorable Mark White Attorney General of Texas Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 Dear General White: In Opinion MW-128, January 14, 1980, you referred to rider 47 at 11-59 of the General Appropriations Act, as an "appropriation." However, in your prior opinion you stated that rider 47 was not an "item of appro- priation" subject to gubernatorial veto. Instead you stated that rider 47 merely directed and qualified the use of moneys "appropriated" else- where. In Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary an appropriation is defined as an act or instance of appropriating and as something that has been appropriated, specifically, money set aside by formal action for a specific use. The definition of appropriation contained in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Addition, is virtually identical. If rider 47 is an appropriation then it should be subject to gubernatorial line item veto in accordance with Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution, and therefore my veto of the Department of Human Resources building project should be upheld. Or have you now ruled that appropria- tion acts may contain three types of riders: 1) items of appropriation, 2) appropriations and 3) riders that direct or qualify the use of funds appropriated elsewhere and that only "items of appropriation" and not appropriations are subject to line item veto? Therefore, I respectfully request your opinion on whether rider 47 is a new hybrid type of rider and what constitutional, statutory, or judicial interpretation creates an "appropriation" that is not subject to line item veto. Respectfully submitted, li) . William P. Clements, Jr.