    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 623-660]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XXI.

                                    ON BILLS.

    Sec. 830. Reading, engrossment, and passage of
    bills.

      1. Bills and  joint resolutions on their passage shall be read the first time
    by title and the second time in full, when, if the previous question is
    ordered, the Speaker shall state the question to be: Shall the bill be
    engrossed and read a third time? and, if decided in the affirmative, it
    shall be read the third time by title, and the question shall then be
    put upon its passage.

      This rule was adopted in 1789, amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and
    on Jan. 4, 1965 (H. Res. 8, 89th Cong.). This latest amendment
    eliminated the provision which permitted a Member to demand the reading
    in full of the engrossed copy of a House bill.

    [[Page 624]]
    up in that committee. A bill read in full in Committee of the Whole and
    reported therefrom is not read in full again when acted on by the House
    (IV, 3409, 3410, 4916). But when a bill is taken up in Committee of the
    Whole its reading in full may be demanded before general debate begins,
    although it may have just been read in the House (IV, 4738); and may be
    dispensed with by unanimous consent, or by the special order providing
    for consideration of the bill, and a motion to that effect is not in
    order (VIII, 2335, 2436). The Speaker may object to a request for
    unanimous consent that a bill may be acted on without being read (IV,
    3390; VII, 1054).

    Sec. 831. First and second readings.

      Formerly a  bill was
    read for the first time by title at the time of its introduction, but
    since 1890 all bills have been introduced by filing them with the Clerk,
    thus rendering a reading by title impossible at that time (IV, 3391).
    But the titles of all bills introduced are printed in the Journal and
    Record, thus carrying out the real purposes of the rule. The second
    reading formerly occurred in the House before commitment; but as the
    processes of handling bills have been shortened, the second reading now
    occurs for bills considered in the House alone when they are taken up
    for action (IV, 3391), and, for bills considered in Committee of the
    Whole, when they are taken

    Sec. 832. The third reading after
    engrossment.

      The right to  demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a
    bill formerly guaranteed by the rule, existed only immediately after it
    had passed to be engrossed and before it had been read a third time by
    title (IV, 3400, 3403, 3404; VII, 1061); or before the yeas and nays had
    been ordered on passage (IV, 3402). The right to demand the reading in
    full caused the bill to be laid aside until engrossed even though the
    previous question had been ordered (IV, 3395-3399; VII, 1062). A
    privileged motion may not intervene before the third reading (IV, 3405),
    and the question on engrossment and third reading is not subject to a
    demand for division of the question (Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544). A vote on
    the passage has been reconsidered in order to remedy the omission to
    read a bill a third time (IV, 3406). Senate bills are not engrossed in
    the House; but are ordered to a third reading. The demand for the
    reading of the engrossed copy of a Senate bill cannot be made in the
    House (VIII, 2426).

    Sec. 833. Voting on bills.

      A bill in  the House (as
    distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) is amended pending the
    engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VI, 1051, 1052). The question on
    engrossment and third reading being decided in the negative the bill is
    rejected (IV, 3420, 3421). A bill must be considered and voted on by
    itself (IV, 3408). Where the two Houses pass similar but distinct bills
    on the same subject it is necessary that one or the other House act
    again on the subject (IV, 3386). The requirement of a two-thirds vote
    for proposed constitutional amendments has been construed in the later
    practice to apply only to the vote on the final passage (V, 7029, 7030;
    VIII, 3504). A bill having been rejected by the House, a similar but not
    identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held to be in order
    (IV, 3384).

    [[Page 625]]
    cept to continue appropriations for public works and objects which are
    already in progress.

    Sec. 834a. Unauthorized appropriations in reported
    general appropriation bills or amendments thereto.

      2. (a)  No appropriation
    shall be reported in any general appropriation bill, or shall be in
    order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously
    authorized by law, ex

    Sec. 834b. Legislation in reported general appropriation
    bills; exceptions.

      (b)  No provision changing existing law shall be
    reported in any general appropriation bill except germane provisions
    which retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered
    by the bill, which may include those recommended to the Committee on
    Appropriations by direction of any legislative committee having
    jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof, and except rescissions of
    appropriations contained in appropriations Acts.

    Sec. 834c. Legislation or limitations in amendments to
    general appropriation bills.

      (c)  No amendment to a general appropriation
    bill shall be in order if changing existing law. Except as provided in
    paragraph (d), no amendment shall be in order during consideration of a
    general appropriation bill proposing a limitation not specifically
    contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the
    limitation.

    [[Page 626]]
    ized in existing law for the period of the limitation or proposing
    germane amendments which retrench expenditures by reduction of amounts
    of money covered by the bill may be considered; but after the vote on
    any such amendment, the privileged motion made in order under this
    paragraph may be renewed.

    Sec. 834d. Motion to rise and report as preferential to
    limitation or retrenchment amendments.

      (d)  After a general appropriation
    bill has been read for amendment and amendments not precluded by
    paragraphs (a) or (c) of this clause have been considered, motions that
    the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with
    such amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the
    majority leader or a designee, have precedence over motions to further
    amend the bill. If any such motion is rejected, amendments proposing
    limitations not specifically contained or author

    Sec. 834e. Designated emergencies in reported
    appropriation bills.

      (e)  No provision shall be reported in any
    appropriation bill or joint resolution containing an emergency
    designation for purposes of section 251(b)(2)(D) or section 252(e) of
    the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, or shall be in
    order as an amendment thereto, if the provision or amendment is not
    designated as an emergency, unless the provision or amendment rescinds
    budget authority or reduces direct spending, or reduces an amount for a
    designated emergency.

    [[Page 627]]

    Sec. 834f. Offsetting amendments en bloc to appropriation
    bills.

      (f)  During the reading of any appropriation bill for amendment in
    the Committee of the Whole, it shall be in order to consider en bloc
    amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations among objects in
    the bill without increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays in
    the bill. When considered en bloc pursuant to this paragraph, such
    amendments may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment
    (following the disposition of any points of order against such portions)
    and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
    House or in the Committee of the Whole.

      The 25th Congress in 1837 was the first to adopt a rule prohibiting
    appropriations in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto not
    previously authorized by law, in order to prevent delay of appropriation
    bills because of contention over propositions of legislation. In 1838
    that Congress added the exception to permit unauthorized appropriations
    for continuation of works in progress and for contingencies for carrying
    on departments of the Government. The rule remained in that form until
    the 44th Congress in 1876, when William S. Holman of Indiana persuaded
    the House to amend the rule to permit germane legislative retrenchments.
    In 1880, the 46th Congress dropped the exception which permitted
    unauthorized appropriations for contingencies of Government departments,
    and modified the ``Holman Rule'' to define retrenchments as the
    reduction of the number and salary of officers of the United States, the
    reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the
    United States, or the reduction of the amounts of money covered by the
    bill. That form of the retrenchment exception remained in place until
    the 49th Congress in 1885, when it was dropped until the 52d Congress in
    1891, and then re-inserted through the 53d Congress until 1894. It was
    again dropped in the 54th Congress from 1895 until re-inserted in the
    62d Congress in 1911 (IV, 3578; VII, 1125).

      The clause remained unamended until January 3, 1983, when the 98th
    Congress restructured it in the basic form of paragraphs (a)-(d).

      Paragraph (a) retained the prohibition against unauthorized
    appropriations in general appropriation bills and amendments thereto
    except in continuation of works in progress.

      Paragraph (b) narrowed the ``Holman Rule'' exception from the
    prohibition against legislation to cover only retrenchments reducing
    amounts of money included in the bill as reported, and permitted
    legislative committees with proper jurisdiction to recommend such
    retrenchments to the Appropriations Committee for discretionary
    inclusion in the reported bill. The last exception in paragraph (b),
    permitting the inclusion of legislation rescinding appropriations, was
    added in the 99th Congress by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
    Control Act of 1985 (sec. 228(a), P.L. 99-177); however, that exception
    does not extend to the rescission of contract authority provided by laws
    other than appropriation acts (Sept. 22, 1993, p. ----; Sept. 23, 1993,
    p. ----).

    [[Page 628]]
    ance with clause 2(c) or in accordance with clause 2(d) (June 18, 1991,
    p. ----).
      Paragraph (c) retained the prohibition against amendments changing
    existing law but permitted limitation amendments during the reading of
    the bill by paragraph only if specifically authorized by existing law
    for the period of the limitation. The exception for limitations is
    strictly construed to apply only where existing law requires or permits
    the inclusion of limiting language in an appropriation Act, and not
    merely where the limitation is alleged to be ``consistent with existing
    law'' (June 28, 1988, p. 16267). Although the Committee on
    Appropriations may include a limitation in its reported bill, if it is
    stricken with other legislative language on a point of order it may be
    reinserted during the reading only if in compli

    [[Page 629]]

      Paragraph (d) provided a new procedure for consideration of
    retrenchment and other limitation amendments only when reading of a
    general appropriation bill has been completed and only if the Committee
    of the Whole does not adopt a motion to rise and report the bill back to
    the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). In the 104th Congress
    paragraph (d) was amended to limit the availability of its preferential
    motion to rise and report to the Majority Leader or his designee (sec.
    215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). Where the reading of a
    general appropriation bill for amendment has been completed (or
    dispensed with), including the last paragraph of the bill containing the
    citation to the short title (July 30, 1986, p. 18214), the Chair may
    first inquire whether any Member seeks to offer an amendment not
    prohibited by clauses 2(a) or (c) prior to recognizing Members to offer
    limitation or retrenchment amendments, since the motion to rise and
    report to the House pursuant to clause 2(d) of this rule only supersedes
    that category of amendments and does not take precedence of amendments
    otherwise in order (June 2, 1983, p. 14317; Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406;
    Oct. 27, 1983, p. 29630), including pro forma amendments (Aug. 2, 1989,
    p. 18126). Pursuant to clause 2(d), a motion that the Committee rise and
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
    adopted is not debatable (Apr. 23, 1987, p. 9613) and takes precedence
    over a limitation (or retrenchment) amendment (July 30, 1985, p. 21534;
    July 23, 1986, p. 17431; Apr. 23, 1987, p. 9613), but only after
    completion of the reading and disposition of amendments not otherwise
    precluded (June 30, 1992, p. ----). Thus a motion that the Committee
    rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that it be
    recommitted, with instructions to report back to the House (forthwith or
    otherwise) with an amendment proposing a limitation, does not take
    precedence over the motion to rise and report the bill to the House with
    such amendments as may have been adopted (sustained on appeal, Sept. 19,
    1983, p. 24647). An amendment not only reducing an amount in a paragraph
    of an appropriation bill but also limiting expenditure of those funds on
    a particular project (i.e., a limitation not contained in existing law)
    was held not in order during the reading of that paragraph but only at
    the end of the bill under clause 2(d) (July 23, 1986, p. 17431; June 15,
    1988, p. 14719). Where language of limitation was stricken from a
    general appropriation bill on a point of order that it changed existing
    law, an amendment proposing to reinsert the limitation without its
    former legislative content was held not in order before completion of
    the reading for amendment (Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----). A motion that the
    Committee of the Whole rise and report to the House with the
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out takes precedence
    over the motion to amend under clause 7 of rule XXIII and thus over the
    motion to rise and report under clause 2(d) (July 24, 1986, p. 17641).

      Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215, H.
    Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----).

    Sec. 835. Points of order on general appropriation
    bills.

      As the rule  applies only to general appropriation bills, which are not
    enumerated or defined in the rules (VII, 1116) bills appropriating only
    for one purpose have been held not to be ``general'' within the meaning
    of this rule (VII, 1122). Neither a resolution providing an
    appropriation for a single government agency (Jan. 31, 1962, p. 1352),
    nor a joint resolution only containing continuing appropriations for
    diverse agencies to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are
    enacted (Sept. 21, 1967, p. 26370), nor a joint resolution providing an
    appropriation for a single government agency and permitting a transfer
    of a portion of those funds to another agency (Oct. 25, 1979, pp. 29627-
    28), nor a joint resolution transferring funds already appropriated from
    one specific agency to another (Mar. 26, 1980, pp. 6716-17), nor a joint
    resolution transferring unobligated balances to the President to be
    available for specified purposes but containing no new budget authority
    (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3239), are ``general appropriation bills'' within the
    purview of this clause. A point of order under this rule does not apply
    to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules ``self-
    executing'' the adoption in the House of an amendment changing existing
    law (July 27, 1993, p. ----).

      As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require
    consideration in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the enforcement
    of the rule must ordinarily occur during consideration in Committee of
    the Whole, where the Chair, on the raising of a point of order, may rule
    out any portion of the bill in conflict with the rule (IV, 3811; Sept.
    8, 1965, pp. 23140, 23182). Portions of the bill thus stricken are not
    reported back to the House.

    [[Page 630]]
    containing legislation (Sept. 1, 1976, pp. 28883-84) or a limitation
    not considered in the Committee of the Whole (Speaker Foley, Aug. 1,
    1989, p. 17159, and Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18546, each time sustained by
    tabling of appeal); and such amendment is precluded whether the
    Committee of the Whole has risen and reported automatically pursuant to
    a special rule or, instead, by a motion at the end of the reading for
    amendment (June 22, 1995, p. ----).
      Prior to the adoption of clause 8 of rule XXI in the 104th Congress
    (see Sec. 848a, infra), it was necessary that some Member reserve points
    of order when a general appropriation bill was referred to the calendar
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, in order
    that provisions in violation of the rule could be stricken in the
    Committee (V, 6921-6925; VIII, 3450; Chairman Chindblom, Feb. 6, 1926,
    p. 3456). Where points of order had been reserved pending a unanimous
    consent request that the committee be permitted to file its report when
    the House would not be in session, it was not necessary that they be
    reserved again when the report ultimately was presented as privileged
    when the House was in session, as the initial reservation carried over
    to the subsequent filing (Mar. 1, 1983, p. 3241). In an instance where
    points of order were not reserved against an appropriation bill when it
    was reported to the House and referred to the Committee of the Whole,
    points of order in the Committee of the Whole against a proposition in
    violation of this clause were overruled on the ground that the Chairman
    of the Committee of the Whole lacked authority to pass upon the question
    (Apr. 8, 1943, pp. 3150-51, 3153). The enforcement of the rule also
    occurs in the House in that a motion to recommit a general appropriation
    bill may not propose an amendment

      By unanimous consent the Committee of the Whole may vacate proceedings
    under specified points of order (June 7, 1991, p. ----).

    [[Page 631]]
    and an amendment to the paragraph has been offered (June 27, 1974, pp.
    21670-72).
      Points of order against unauthorized appropriations or legislation on
    general appropriation bills may be made as to the whole or only a
    portion of a paragraph (IV, 3652; V, 6881). The fact that a point is
    made against a portion of a paragraph does not prevent another point
    against the whole paragraph (V, 6882; July 31, 1985, p. 21895). If a
    portion of a proposed amendment be out of order, it is sufficient for
    the rejection of the whole amendment (V, 6878-6880); and if a point of
    order is sustained against any portion of a package of amendments
    considered en bloc, all the amendments are ruled out of order and must
    be reoffered separately, or those which are not subject to a point of
    order may be considered en bloc by unanimous consent (Sept. 16, 1981,
    pp. 20735-38; June 21, 1984, p. 17687). Where a point is made against
    the whole of a paragraph the whole must go out, but it is otherwise when
    the point is made only against a portion (V, 6884, 6885). General
    appropriation bills are read ``scientifically'' only by paragraph
    headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order against a
    paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto or before
    the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount (Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 2.26). A point of order against a
    paragraph under this clause may be made only after that paragraph has
    been read by the Clerk, and not prior to its reading pending
    consideration of an amendment inserting language immediately prior
    thereto (June 6, 1985, pp. 14605, 14609). Where the reading of a
    paragraph of a general appropriation bill has been dispensed with by
    unanimous consent, the Chair inquires whether there are points of order
    against the paragraph before entertaining amendments or directing the
    Clerk to read further, but he does not make such an inquiry where the
    Clerk has actually read the paragraph (May 31, 1984, p. 14608). Where
    the bill is considered as having been read and open to amendment by
    unanimous consent, points of order against provisions in the bill must
    be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be reserved pending
    subsequent action on amendments (Dec. 1, 1982, p. 28175). Where a
    chapter is considered as read by unanimous consent and open to amendment
    at any point, no amendments are offered and the Clerk begins to read the
    next chapter, it is too late to make a point of order against a
    paragraph in the preceeding chapter (June 11, 1985, p. 15181). It is too
    late to rule out the entire paragraph after points of order against
    specific portions have been sustained

      In the administration of the rule, it is the practice that those
    upholding an item of appropriation should have the burden of showing the
    law authorizing it (IV, 3597; VII, 1179, 1233, 1276). Thus the burden of
    proving the authorization for language carried in an appropriation bill,
    or that the language in the bill constitutes a valid limitation which
    does not change existing law, falls on the proponents and managers of
    the bill (May 28, 1968, p. 15357; Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062). Where a
    provision is susceptible to more than one interpretation, that burden
    may be met by a showing that only the requirements of existing law, and
    not any new requirements, are recited in the language (Sept. 23, 1993,
    p. ----). The Chair may overrule a point of order that appropriations
    for a certain agency are unauthorized upon citation to an organic
    statute creating the agency, absent any showing that the organic law has
    been overtaken by a scheme of periodic reauthorization; the Chair may
    hear further argument and reverse his ruling, however, where existing
    law not previously called to the Chair's attention would require the
    ruling to be reversed (VIII, 3435; June 8, 1983, p. 14854, where a law
    amending the statute creating the Bureau of the Mint with the express
    purpose of requiring annual authorizations was subsequently called to
    the Chair's attention). Reported provisions in a general appropriation
    bill described in the accompanying report (pursuant to clause 3 of rule
    XXI) as directly or indirectly changing the application of existing law
    are presumably legislation, absent rebuttal by the committee (May 31,
    1984, p. 14591). The burden of proof to show that an appropriation
    contained in an amendment is authorized by law is on the proponent of
    the amendment (May 11, 1971, p. 14471; Oct. 29, 1991, p. ----) and the
    burden is on the proponent of an amendment to a general appropriation
    bill to prove that language offered under the guise of a limitation does
    not change existing law (July 17, 1975, p. 23239; June 16, 1976, pp.
    18666-67). If the amendment is susceptible to more than one
    interpretation, it is incumbent upon the proponent to show that it is
    not in violation of the rule (Procedure, ch. 25, sec. 6.3; July 28,
    1980, pp. 19924-25). The mere recitation in an amendment that a
    determination is to be made pursuant to existing laws and regulations,
    absent a citation to the law imposing such responsibility, is not
    sufficient proof by the proponent of an amendment to overcome a point of
    order that the amendment constitutes legislation (Sept. 16, 1980, pp.
    25606-07). The authorization must be enacted before the appropriation
    may be included in an appropriation bill; thus delaying the availability
    of an appropriation pending enactment of an authorization does not
    protect the item of appropriation against a point of order under this
    clause (Apr. 26, 1972, p. 14455).

    [[Page 632]]
    authorized purpose is in order (July 27, 1954, p. 12287; Oct. 1, 1975,
    p. 31058; June 8, 1977, pp. 17941-42; July 17, 1985, p. 19435), but an
    amendment adding further unauthorized items of appropriation or
    earmarking for another unauthorized purpose or adding legislation in the
    form of new duties or broadening the application of a legislative
    provision permitted to remain to other funds is not in order (Dec. 8,
    1971, p. 45487; Aug. 7, 1978, pp. 24710-12; July 30, 1985, p. 21532;
    July 17, 1986, p. 16918; July 23, 1986, p. 17446; June 26, 1987, p.
    17655; May 25, 1988, p. 12256; June 28, 1988, pp. 16203, 16213). But to
    a legislative provision permitted to remain conferring assistance on a
    certain class of recipients, an amendment adding another class is
    further legislation and is not merely perfecting in nature (June 22,
    1983, p. 16851). An amendment to a general appropriation bill is not
    subject to a point of order as adding legislation if containing,
    verbatim, a legislative provision already contained in the bill and
    permitted to remain (Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23519). Where by unanimous
    consent an amendment is offered en bloc to a paragraph of a general
    appropriation bill containing an unauthorized amount not yet read for
    amendment, the amendment increasing that unauthorized figure is subject
    to a point of order since at that point it is not being offered to a
    paragraph which has been read and permitted to remain (June 21, 1984, p.
    17687). To a legislative provision in a general appropriation bill,
    permitted to remain, exempting cases where the life of the mother would
    be endangered if a fetus were carried to term from a denial of funds for
    abortions, an amendment exempting instead cases where the health of the
    mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term was held
    not to constitute further legislation, since determinations on the
    endangerment of life necessarily subsume determinations on the
    endangerment of health, and the amendment did not therefore require any
    different or more onerous determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113). The
    inclusion of funds in a general appropriation bill in the form of a
    ``not to exceed'' limitation does not obviate a point of order that the
    funds are not authorized by law (June 21, 1988, p. 15440).
      Where an unauthorized appropriation or legislation is permitted to
    remain in a general appropriation bill by failure to raise or by waiver
    of a point of order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not
    adding legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another un

    [[Page 633]]
    tion for an office created by executive order issued pursuant to the
    Reorganization Plan (June 21, 1974, pp. 20595-96). A resolution of the
    House has been held sufficient authorization for an appropriation for
    the salary of an employee of the House (IV, 3656-3658) even though the
    resolution may have been agreed to only by a preceding House (IV, 3660).
    Previous enactment of items of appropriation unauthorized by law does
    not justify similar appropriations in subsequent bills (VII, 1145, 1150,
    1151) unless if through appropriations previously made, a function of
    the government has been established which would bring it into the
    category of continuation of works in progress (VII, 1280), or unless
    legislation in a previous appropriation act has become permanent law
    (May 20, 1964, p. 11422). The omission to appropriate during a series of
    years for an object authorized by law does not repeal the law, and
    consequently an appropriation when proposed is not subject to the point
    of order (IV, 3595). The law authorizing each head of a department to
    employ such numbers of clerks, messengers, copyists, watchmen, laborers,
    and other employees as may be appropriated for by Congress from year to
    year is held to authorize appropriations for those positions not
    otherwise authorized by law (IV, 3669, 3675, 4739); but this law does
    not apply to offices not within departments or not at the seat of
    government (IV, 3670-3674). And a permanent law authorizing the
    President to appoint certain staff, together with legislative provisions
    authorizing additional employment contained in an appropriation bill
    enacted for that fiscal year, constituted sufficient authorization for a
    lump sum supplemental appropriation for the White House for the same
    fiscal year (Nov. 30, 1973, pp. 38854-55). By a general provision of law
    appropriations for investigations and the acquisition and diffusion of
    information by the Agricultural Department on subjects related to
    agriculture are generally in order in the agricultural appropriation
    bill (IV, 3649). It has once been held that this law would authorize
    also appropriations for the instrumentalities of such investigations
    (IV, 3615); but these would not include the organization of a bureau to
    conduct the work (IV, 3651). The law does not authorize general
    investigations by the department (IV, 3652), or cooperation with state
    investigations (IV, 3650; VII, 1301, 1302), or the investigation of
    foods in relation to commerce (IV, 3647, 3648; VII, 1298), or the
    compiling of tests at an exposition (IV, 3653). A paragraph of a general
    appropriation bill both establishing and funding a commission was ruled
    out as constituting legislation and carrying unauthorized appropriations
    (June 29, 1988, p. 16470). A paragraph appropriating funds for matching-
    grants to States was held unauthorized where the authorizing law did not
    require State matching funds (June 28, 1993, p. ----). A paragraph
    funding a project from the Highway Trust Fund was held unauthorized
    where such funding was authorized only from the general fund (Sept. 23,
    1993, p. ----).

    Sec. 836. Authorization of law for
    appropriations.

      The authorization  by existing law required in the rule to justify
    appropriations may be made also by a treaty if it has been ratified by
    both the contracting parties (IV, 3587); however, where existing law
    authorizes appropriations for the U.S. share of facilities to be
    recommended in an agreement with another country containing specified
    elements, an agreement in principle with that country predating the
    authorization law and lacking the required elements is insufficient
    authorization (June 28, 1993, p. ----). An executive order does not
    constitute sufficient authorization in law absent proof of its
    derivation from a statute enacted by Congress authorizing the order and
    expenditure of funds (June 15, 1973, p. 19855; June 25, 1974, p. 21036).
    Thus a Reorganization Plan submitted by the President pursuant to 5
    U.S.C. 906 has the status of statutory law when it becomes effective and
    is sufficient authorization to support an appropria

    [[Page 634]]
    a point of order, where more general existing law authorizes
    appropriations for all of the programs proposed to be modified by new
    legislation pending before Congress (June 8, 1978, p. 16778). But
    whether organic statutes or general grants of authority in law
    constitute sufficient authorization to support appropriations depends on
    whether the general laws applicable to the function or department in
    question require specific and/or annual authorizations. For example, 22
    U.S.C. 2680(a)(1) provides that no funds are available to the Department
    of State for obligation or expenditure unless appropriations therefor
    have been authorized by law enacted after February, 1972; thus
    appropriations for direct operations of that Department and for related
    functions violate clause 2 of rule XXI absent enactment of specific
    authorizations for the fiscal year in question (June 14, 1978, p.
    17616). Similar statutes pertain to the Department of Justice and
    related agencies and bureaus (June 14, 1978, p. 17622), the National
    Bureau of Standards (June 14, 1978, p. 17626), the Federal Trade
    Commission (June 14, 1978, p. 17630), and a variety of other agencies
    (June 14, 1978, pp. 17624-30). An authorization of ``such sums as may be
    necessary'' is sufficient to support any dollar amount, but has no
    tendency to relieve other conditions of the authorization law (June 28,
    1993, p. ----). Where existing law authorizes certain appropriations
    from a particular trust fund without fiscal year limitation, language
    that such an appropriation remain available until expended does not
    constitute legislation (July 15, 1993, p. ----).
      The failure of Congress to enact into law separate legislation
    specifically modifying eligibility requirements for grant programs under
    existing law does not necessarily render appropriations for those
    programs subject to

      Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XLVIII, no funds may be appropriated to
    certain agencies carrying out intelligence and intelligence-related
    activities, unless such funds have been authorized by law for the fiscal
    year in question.

    Sec. 837. Authorization for claims and
    salaries.

      Judgments of  courts certified to Congress in accordance with law or
    authorized by treaty (IV, 3634, 3635, 3644) and audited under authority
    of law have been held to be authorization for appropriations for the
    payment of claims (IV, 3634, 3635). But unadjudicated claims (IV, 3628),
    even though ascertained and transmitted by an executive officer (IV,
    3625-3640), and findings filed under the Bowman Act do not constitute
    authorization (IV, 3643).

    [[Page 635]]
    not in order to provide for an unauthorized office and salary in lieu
    of it (IV, 3680).
      An appropriation for an object not otherwise authorized does not
    constitute authorization to justify a continuance of the appropriation
    another year (IV, 3588, 3589; VII, 1128, 1145, 1149, 1191), and the mere
    appropriation for a salary does not create an office so as to justify
    appropriations in succeeding years (IV, 3590, 3672, 3697), it being a
    general rule that propositions to appropriate for salaries not
    established by law or to increase salaries fixed by law are out of order
    (IV, 3664-3667, 3676-3679). But an exception to these general principles
    is found in the established practice that in the absence of a general
    law fixing a salary the amount appropriated in the last appropriation
    bill has been held to be the legal salary (IV, 3687-3696). A law having
    established an office and fixed a salary, it is

    Sec. 838. Authorizations for public works.

      An  appropriation
    for a public work in excess of a fixed limit of cost (IV, 3583, 3584;
    VII, 1133), or for extending a service beyond the limits assigned by an
    executive officer exercising a lawful discretion (IV, 3598), or by
    actual law (IV, 3582, 3585), or for purposes prohibited by law are out
    of order (IV, 3580, 3581, 3702), as is an appropriation from the Highway
    Trust Fund where the project is specifically authorized from the general
    fund (Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----). But the mere appropriation of a sum ``to
    complete'' a work does not fix a limit of cost such as would exclude
    future appropriations (IV, 3761). A declaration of policy in an act
    followed by specific provisions conferring authority upon a governmental
    agency to perform certain functions is not construed to authorize
    appropriations for purposes germane to the policy but not specifically
    authorized by the act (VII, 1200). A point of order will not lie against
    an amendment proposing to increase a lump sum for public works projects
    where language in the bill limits use of the lump sum appropriation to
    ``projects as authorized by law'' (Procedure, ch. 25, sec. 5.5), but
    where language in the bill limits use of the lump sum both to projects
    ``authorized by laws'' and ``subject, where appropriate, to enactment of
    authorizing legislation,'' that paragraph constitutes an appropriation
    in part for some unauthorized projects and is not in order (June 6,
    1985, p. 14617).

    [[Page 636]]
    (IV, 3704). It has been held that a work has not been begun within the
    meaning of the rule when an appropriation has been made for a site for a
    public building (IV, 3785), or when a commission has been created to
    select a site or when a site has actually been selected for a work (IV,
    3762-3763), or when a survey has been made (IV, 3782-3784). By ``public
    works and objects already in progress'' are meant tangible matters like
    buildings, roads, etc., and not duties of officials in executive
    departments (IV, 3709-3713), or the continuance of a work indefinite as
    to completion and intangible in nature like the gauging of streams (IV,
    3714, 3715). A general system of roads on which some work has been done
    cannot be admitted as a work in progress (VII, 1333), nor can an
    extension of an existing road (Sept. 22, 1993, p. ----). Concerning
    reappropriation for continuation of public works in progress, see
    Sec. 847, infra.

    Sec. 839. Continuation of a public work by
    appropriations.

      The rule  requiring appropriations to be authorized by existing
    law excepts those ``in continuance of appropriations for such public
    works and objects as are already in progress'' (IV, 3578); and the
    ``works in progress'' exception has historically been applied only in
    cases of general revenue funding (Sept. 22, 1993, pp. ----; Sept. 23,
    1993, pp. ----). But an appropriation in violation of existing law or to
    extend a service beyond a fixed limit is not in order as the continuance
    of a public work (IV, 3585, 3702-3724; VII, 1332; Sept. 23, 1993, pp. --
    --; June 8, 1983, Deschler's Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 8.9).
    Where existing law (40 U.S.C. 606) specifically prohibits the making of
    an appropriation to construct or alter any public building involving
    more than $500,000 unless approved by the House and Senate Public Works
    Committees, an appropriation for such purposes not authorized by both
    committees is out of order notwithstanding the ``works in progress''
    exemption, since the law specifically precludes the appropriation from
    being made (June 8, 1983, p. 14855). An appropriation from the Highway
    Trust Fund for an ongoing project was held not in order under the
    ``works in progress'' exception where the Internal Revenue Code
    ``occupied the field'' with a comprehensive authorization scheme not
    embracing the specified project (Sept. 22, 1993, pp. ----; Sept. 23,
    1993, pp. ----). Interruption of a work does not necessarily remove it
    from the privileges of the rule (IV, 3705-3708); but the continuation of
    the work must not be so conditioned in relation to place as to become a
    new work

    [[Page 637]]

    Sec. 840. Examples illustrating the continuation of a
    public work.

      Thus the  continuation of the following works has been admitted: A
    topographical survey (IV, 3796, 3797; VII, 1382), a geological map (IV,
    3795), marking of a boundary line (IV, 3717), marking graves of soldiers
    (IV, 3788), a list of claims (IV, 3717), and recoinage of coins in the
    Treasury (IV, 3807); but the following works have not been admitted:
    Investigation of materials, like coal (IV, 3721), scientific
    investigations (IV, 3719; VII, 1345), duties of a commission (IV, 3720;
    VII, 1344), extension of foreign markets for goods (IV, 3722), printing
    of a series of opinions indefinite in continuance (IV, 3718), free
    evening lectures in the District of Columbia (IV, 3789), certain ongoing
    projects from the Highway Trust Fund (Sept. 22, 1993, pp. ----; Sept.
    23, 1993, pp. ----), extension of an existing road (Sept. 22, 1993, p.
    ----), continuation of an extra compensation for ordinary facility for
    carrying the mails (IV, 3808), although the continuation of certain
    special mail facilities has been admitted (IV, 3804-3806). But
    appropriations for rent and repairs of buildings or Government roads
    (IV, 3793, 3798) and bridges (IV, 3803) have been admitted as in
    continuation of a work (IV, 3777, 3778), although it is not in order as
    such to provide for a new building in place of one destroyed (IV, 3606).
    Nor is it in order to repair paving adjacent to a public building but in
    a city street, although it may have been laid originally by the
    Government (IV, 3779). The purchase of adjoining land for a work already
    established has been admitted under this principle (IV, 3766-3773) and
    also additions to existing buildings in cases where no limits of cost
    have been shown (IV, 3774, 3775). But the purchase of a separate and
    detached lot of land is not admitted (IV, 3776). The continuation of
    construction at the Kennedy Library, a project owned by the United
    States and funded by a prior year's appropriation, has been admitted
    notwithstanding the absence of any current authorization (June 14, 1988,
    p. 14335). A provision of law authorizing Commissioners of the District
    of Columbia to take over and operate the fish wharves of the city of
    Washington was held insufficient authority to admit an appropriation for
    reconstructing the fish wharf (VII, 1187).

    Sec. 841a. New buildings at existing
    institutions as in continuance of a public work.

      Appropriations for  new buildings at
    Government institutions have sometimes been admitted (IV, 3741-3750)
    when intended for the purposes of the institution (IV, 3747); but later
    decisions, in view of the indefinite extent of the practice made
    possible by the early decisions, have ruled out propositions to
    appropriate for new buildings in navy yards (IV, 3755-3759) and other
    establishments (IV, 3751-3754). Appropriations for new schoolhouses in
    the District of Columbia (IV, 3750; VII, 1358), for new Army hospitals
    (IV, 3740), for new lighthouses (IV, 3728), armor-plate factories (IV,
    3737-3739), and for additional playgrounds for children in the District
    of Columbia (IV, 3792) have also been held not to be in continuation of
    a public work.

    Sec. 841b. New vessel for naval and other services
    as in continuation of a public work.

      By a former  broad construction of the rule an
    appropriation of a new and not otherwise authorized vessel of the Navy
    had been held to be a continuance of a public work (IV, 3723, 3724); but
    this line of decisions has been overruled (VII, 1351; Chairman Lehlbach,
    Jan. 22, 1926, p. 2621). While appropriations for new construction and
    procurement of aircraft and equipment for the Navy are not in order,
    appropriations for continuing experiments and development work on all
    types of aircraft are in order (Chairman Lehlbach, Jan. 22, 1926, p.
    2623). This former interpretation was confined to naval vessels, and did
    not apply to vessels in other services, like the Coast and Geodetic
    Survey or Lighthouse Service (IV, 3725, 3726), or to floating or
    stationary dry docks (IV, 3729-3736). The construction of a submarine
    cable in extension of one already laid was held not to be the
    continuation of a public work (IV, 3716), but an appropriation for the
    Washington-Alaska military cable has been held in order (VII, 1348).

    [[Page 638]]
    1993, p. ----). Existing law may be repeated verbatim in an
    appropriation bill (IV, 3814, 3815), but the slightest change of the
    text causes it be ruled out (IV, 3817; VII, 1391, 1394; June 4, 1970, p.
    18405). It is in order to include language descriptive of authority
    provided in law for the operation of government agencies and
    corporations so long as the description is precise and does not change
    that authority in any respect (June 15, 1973, pp. 19843-44; Aug. 3,
    1978, p. 24249); and while language merely reciting the applicability of
    current law to the use of earmarked funds is permitted, an amendment
    that elevates existing guidelines to mandates for spending has been
    ruled out (July 12, 1989, p. 14432). Although the object to be
    appropriated for may be described without violating the rule (IV, 3864),
    an amendment proposing an appropriation under a heading that indicates
    an unauthorized purpose as its object has been ruled out (Oct. 29, 1991,
    p. ----). The fact that an item has been carried in appropriation bills
    for many years does not exempt it from a point of order as being
    legislation (VII, 1445, 1656). The reenactment from year to year of a
    law intended to apply during the year of its enactment only is not
    relieved, however, from the point that it is legislation (IV, 3822).

    Sec. 842a. Legislation on appropriation bills
    generally.

      The provision of  the rule forbidding in any general appropriation bill a
    ``provision changing existing law'' is construed to mean the enactment
    of law where none exists (IV, 3812, 3813), such as permitting funds to
    remain available until expended or beyond the fiscal year covered by the
    bill, where existing law permits no such availability (Aug. 1, 1973, pp.
    27288-89), or immediately upon enactment (July 29, 1986, p. 17981; June
    28, 1988, p. 16255) or merely permits availability to the extent
    provided in advance in appropriation Acts but not explicitly beyond the
    fiscal year in question (July 21, 1981, p. 16687). Language waiving the
    provisions of existing law where the law being waived permits exceptions
    therefrom to be contained in appropriation laws but not in appropriation
    bills (Nov. 13, 1975, p. 36271), has been ruled out, as has language
    identical to that contained in an authorization bill previously passed
    by the House but not yet signed into law (Aug. 4, 1978, p. 24436), or a
    proposition for repeal of existing law (VII, 1403). Although clause 2(b)
    permits the Committee on Appropriations to report rescissions of
    appropriations, an amendment proposing a rescission constitutes
    legislation under clause 2(c) (May 26,

      Limits of cost for public works may not be made or changed (IV, 3761,
    3865-3867; VII, 1446), or contracts authorized (IV, 3868-3870; May 14,
    1937, p. 4595).

      The Chair may examine legislative history established during debate on
    an amendment against which a point of order has been reserved to resolve
    any ambiguity therein when ruling on the eventual point of order (June
    14, 1978, p. 17651), and may inquire after its author's intent when
    attempting to construe an ambiguous amendment (Oct. 29, 1991, p. ----).

    Sec. 842b. Contingencies and congressional
    actions.

      An  amendment making an appropriation contingent upon a
    recommendation (June 27, 1979, pp. 17054-55) or action not specifically
    required by law (July 23, 1980, pp. 19295-97; July 29, 1980, pp. 20098-
    200100) is legislation. For example, where existing law requires an
    agency to furnish certain information to congressional committees upon
    request, without a subpoena, it is not in order on an appropriation bill
    to make funding for that agency contingent upon its furnishing
    information to subcommittees upon request (July 29 and July 30, 1980,
    pp. 20475-76), or contingent upon submission of an agreement by a
    Federal official to Congress and Congressional review thereof (July 31,
    1986, p. 18370). Similarly, it is not in order on a general
    appropriation bill to condition funds on legal determinations to be made
    by a federal court and an executive department (June 28, 1988, p. 16261;
    see Deschler's Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 47.2).

    [[Page 639]]
    concurrent resolutions of the Congress, was legislation imposing new
    requirements of further legislative action. On May 15, 1947 (p. 5378),
    the Chair ruled out as legislation an amendment providing that a certain
    appropriation did not grant authority for a certain use of funds unless
    specific approval of Congress was subsequently granted. Two subsequent
    rulings upholding the admissibility of amendments making the
    availability of funds in a general appropriation bill contingent upon
    subsequent Congressional action (June 11, 1968, p. 16692; Sept. 6, 1979,
    pp. 23360-61) have, in turn, been superseded by four more recent
    rulings. On November 18, 1981 (p. 28064), a provision making the
    availability of certain funds contingent upon subsequent Congressional
    action on legislative proposals resolving the policy issue was held to
    constitute legislation; on November 2, 1983 (p. 30503), an amendment to
    a general appropriation bill making the availability of funds therein
    contingent upon subsequent enactment of legislation containing specified
    findings was ruled out as legislation requiring new legislative and
    executive branch policy determinations not required by law; on June 29,
    1987 (p. 18083), an amendment changing a permanent appropriation in
    existing law to restrict its availability until all general
    appropriation bills are presented to the President was held to
    constitute legislation; and on June 27, 1994 (p. ----), an amendment
    limiting funds in the bill for certain peacekeeping operations unless
    authorized by Congress was held to constitute legislation.
      Amendments making the availability of funds in a general appropriation
    bill contingent upon subsequent Congressional action have, under the
    most recent precedents, been ruled out as legislation. On June 30, 1942
    (p. 5826) the Chair ruled that an amendment prohibiting the availability
    of funds to enforce certain executive orders, unless those orders were
    approved by

      It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to require a
    congressional committee to promulgate regulations to limit the use of an
    appropriation (June 13, 1979, pp. 14670-71), or otherwise to direct the
    activities of a committee (June 24, 1992, p. ---- and ----); nor is it
    in order to direct the Selective Service Administration to issue
    regulations to bring its classifications into conformance with a Supreme
    Court decision (July 20, 1989, p. 15405). Also a proposition to change a
    rule of the House is subject to the point of order (IV, 3819). A
    provision constituting Congressional disapproval of a deferral of budget
    authority proposed by the President pursuant to the Impoundment Control
    Act is not in order if included in a general appropriation bill rather
    than in a separate resolution of disapproval under that Act (July 29,
    1982, pp. 18625, 18626). An amendment making the availability of funds
    in a general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive
    determination by a state or local government official or agency which is
    not otherwise required by existing law has been ruled out as legislation
    (July 25, 1985, p. 20569).

    [[Page 640]]
    In interpreting the responsibilities imposed upon Federal officials by
    existing law to determine whether an amendment constitutes a change in
    that law, the Chair may take into account the fact that Federal court
    rulings have not been uniform or finally dispositive of procedural
    duties mandated by the Constitution, as in the case of the requirement
    of a search warrant, based on probable cause, for an inspection by an
    administrative and regulatory agency (June 16, 1977, pp. 19365-74; June
    7, 1978, p. 16676).

    Sec. 842c. Construing or amending existing
    law.

      A provision  proposing to construe existing law is in itself a proposition of
    legislation and therefore not in order (IV, 3936-3938; May 2, 1951, pp.
    4747-48; July 26, 1951, p. 8982), but while a limitation on the use of
    funds may require executive officers to construe the language of that
    limitation in administering those funds, that duty of statutory
    construction, absent a further imposition of an affirmative direction
    not required by law, does not destroy the validity of the limitation
    (June 27, 1974, pp. 21687-94).

      An amendment which does not limit or restrict the use or expenditure
    of funds in the bill, but which expresses the sense of Congress that
    reductions in appropriations in other bills should reflect the
    proportionate reductions made in the pending bill (Oct. 21, 1990, p. --
    --) or directs the way in which all provisions in the bill must be
    interpreted or construed, is legislation (Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23535; May
    17, 1988, p. 11305), although it has been held in order to except from
    the operation of a specific limitation on expenditures, certain of those
    expenditures which are authorized by law, by prohibiting a construction
    of the limitation in a way which would prevent compliance with that law
    (Mar. 24, 1944, p. 3095; June 18, 1991, p. ----). The mere recitation in
    an amendment that a determination is to be made pursuant to existing
    laws and regulations, absent a citation to the law imposing such
    responsibility, is not sufficient proof by the proponent of an amendment
    to overcome a point of order that the amendment constitutes legislation
    (Sept. 16, 1980, pp. 25606-07; May 8, 1986, p. 10156). An amendment
    denying the use of funds for the Treasury Department to apply certain
    provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than under regulations and
    court decisions in effect on a prior date is legislation since requiring
    an official to apply interpretations no longer current in order to
    render an appropriation available (June 7, 1978, p. 16655; Aug. 19,
    1980, pp. 21978-80). A paragraph of a general appropriation bill
    changing existing law concerning federal diversity jurisdiction is
    legislation (July 1, 1987, p. 18638).

    [[Page 641]]
    the proponent can show that the new duties are merely incidental to
    functions already required by law and do not involve substantive new
    determinations (July 26, 1985, p. 20807). Where an amendment to or
    language in a general appropriation bill implicitly places new duties on
    officers of the government or implicitly requires them to make
    investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments and determinations
    not otherwise required of them by law, such as to judge intent or
    motives, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to
    a point of order (July 31, 1969, pp. 21653, 21675, where the words ``in
    order to overcome racial imbalance'' were held to impose additional
    duties, and Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062, where the words ``to interfere
    with'' the rulemaking authority of any regulatory agency were held to
    implicitly require the Office of Management and Budget to make
    determinations not discernibly required by law in evaluating and
    executing its responsibilities). An amendment authorizing the President
    to reduce each appropriation in the bill by not more than ten percent
    was ruled out as legislation conferring new authority on the President
    (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June 6, 1984, p. 15120). A limitation on the
    use of funds, or an exception therefrom, may not be accompanied by
    language stating or requiring a finding of a motive or purpose in
    carrying out the limitation (Aug. 8, 1978, pp. 24969-70; July 22, 1980,
    pp. 19087-88; Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25604; Sept. 22, 1981, p. 21577). A
    paragraph prohibiting the use of funds to perform abortions except where
    the mother's life would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term
    is legislation, since requiring federal officials to make new
    determinations and judgments not required of them by law, regardless
    whether private or State officials administering the funds in question
    routinely make such determinations (June 17, 1977, p. 1969; June 30,
    1993, p. ----). The fact that such a provision relating to abortion
    funding may have been included in appropriation Acts in prior years
    applicable to funds in those laws does not permit the inclusion of
    similar language requiring such determinations, not required by law,
    with respect to funds for the fiscal year in question (Sept. 22, 1983,
    p. 25406); and where the provision, applicable to federal funds, was
    permitted to remain in a bill (no point of order having been made), an
    amendment striking the word ``Federal,'' and thereby broadening the
    provision to include District of Columbia funds as well, was ruled out
    (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29004). But to such a provision permitted to remain
    in a general appropriation bill, an amendment exempting instead cases
    where the health of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
    carried to term was held not to constitute further legislation by
    requiring any different or more onerous determinations (June 27, 1984,
    p. 19113). An amendment prohibiting the use of funds in an appropriation
    bill for the General Services Administration to dispose of U.S.-owned
    ``agricultural'' land declared surplus was ruled out as legislation,
    since the determination whether surplus lands are ``agricultural'' was
    not required by law (Aug. 20, 1980, pp. 22156-58); but a limitation
    precluding funds for any transit project exceeding a specified cost-
    effectiveness index was held not to impose new duties where the

    [[Page 642]]
    Chair was persuaded that the limitation applied to projects for which
    indexes were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----). The fact
    that an executive official may have been directed by an executive order
    to consult another executive official prior to taking an action does not
    permit inclusion of language directing the official being consulted to
    make determinations not specifically required by law (July 22, 1980, pp.
    19087-88).

    Sec. 842d. Imposing duties or requiring
    determinations.

      Propositions to  establish affirmative directions for executive
    officers (IV, 3854-3859; VII, 1443; July 31, 1969, p. 21675; June 18,
    1979, pp. 15286-87; July 1, 1987, pp. 18654 and 18655; June 27, 1994, p.
    ----), even in cases where they may have discretion under the law so to
    do (IV, 3853; June 4, 1970, p. 18401; Aug. 8, 1978, pp. 24959-60), or to
    affirmatively take away an authority or discretion conferred by law (IV,
    3862, 3863; VII, 1975; Mar. 30, 1955, pp. 4065-66; June 21, 1974, p.
    20600; July 31, 1985, p. 21909), are subject to the point of order.
    While any limitation in an appropriation bill (see Sec. 483, supra)
    places some minimal duties on federal officials, who must determine the
    effect of such a limitation on appropriated funds, an amendment or
    language in an appropriation bill may not impose additional duties, not
    required by law, or make the appropriation contingent upon the
    performance of such duties (May 28, 1968, p. 15350). Language in the
    form of a conditional limitation requiring determinations by Federal
    officials will be held to change existing law unless

      An amendment limiting use of funds in a bill may not condition the
    availability of funds or the exercise of contract authority upon an
    interpretation of local law where that interpretation is not required by
    existing law (July 17, 1981, p. 16327); may not require new
    determinations of full Federal compliance with mandates imposed upon
    States (July 22, 1981, p. 16829); may not require the evaluation of the
    theoretical basis of a program (July 22, 1981, p. 16822); may not
    require new determinations of propriety or effectiveness (Oct. 6, 1981,
    p. 23361; May 25, 1988, p. 12275), or satisfactory quality (Aug. 1,
    1986, p. 18647) or incorporate by reference determinations already made
    in administrative processes not affecting programs funded by the bill
    (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361); may not require new determinations of rates of
    interest payable (July 29, 1982, p. 18624; Dec. 9, 1982, p. 29691); may
    not apply standards of conduct to foreign entities where existing law
    requires such conduct only by domestic entities (July 17, 1986, p.
    16951); may not require the enforcement of a standard where existing law
    only requires inspection of an area (July 30, 1986, p. 18189); may not
    prohibit the availability of funds for the purchase of ``nondomestic''
    goods and services (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178); may not mandate
    contractual provisions (May 18, 1988, p. 11389); may not authorize the
    adjustment of wages of government employees (June 21, 1988, p. 15451;
    Apr. 26, 1989, p. 7525) or permit an increase in Members' office
    allowances only ``if requested in writing'' (Oct. 21, 1990, p. ----);
    may not convert an existing legal prerequisite for the issuance of a
    regulatory permit into a prerequisite for even the preliminary
    processing of such a permit (July 22, 1992, p. ----); may not mandate
    reductions in various appropriations by a variable percentaage
    calculated in relation to ``overhead'' (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 8,
    ch. 26, sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. ----); and may not require an agency
    to investigate and determine whether private airports are collecting
    certain fees for each enplaning passenger (Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----).
    However, an amendment limiting use of funds in the bill may deny the
    availability of funds in situations where certain information is
    ``already known'' (VII, 1695; see also Aug. 1, 1989, p. ----, and June
    22, 1995, p. ----, where motions to recommit with ``made known''
    limitations were ruled out as proposing limitations not considered by
    the Committee of the Whole rather than as proposing changes in existing
    law).

    [[Page 643]]
    ity (Mar. 12, 1975, p. 6338), as in an amendment requiring not less
    than a certain sum to be used for a particular purpose where existing
    law does not mandate such expenditure (June 18, 1976, p. 19297; July 29,
    1982, p. 18623), or where an amendment earmarks appropriated funds to
    the arts to require their expenditure pursuant to standards otherwise
    applicable only as guidelines (July 12, 1989, p. 14432). Where existing
    law directed a federal official to provide for sale of certain
    government property to a private organization in ``necessary'' amounts,
    an amendment providing that no such property be withheld from
    distribution from qualifying purchasers is legislation, since requiring
    disposal of all property and restricting discretionary authority to
    determine ``necessary'' amounts (Aug. 7, 1978, p. 24707). An amendment
    directing the use of funds to assure compliance with an existing law,
    where existing law does not so mandate, also is legislation (June 24,
    1976, p. 20370). So-called ``hold-harmless'' provisions which mandate a
    certain level of expenditure for certain purposes or recipients, where
    existing law confers discretion or makes ratable reductions in such
    expenditures, also constitute legislation (Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10357; June
    25, 1976, p. 20557). A transfer of available funds from one Department
    to another with directions as to the use to which those funds must be
    put is legislation (and also a reappropriation in violation of clause 6
    of this rule) (Dec. 8, 1982, p. 29449). A provision requiring States to
    match funds provided in an appropriation bill was held to constitute
    legislation where existing law contained no such requirement (June 28,
    1993, p. ----).

    Sec. 842e. Mandating expenditures.

      A provision  which
    mandates a distribution of funds in contravention of an allocation
    formula in existing law is legislation (July 29, 1982, pp. 18637, 18638;
    Oct. 5, 1983, p. 27335; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18123), as is an amendment
    which by such a mandate interferes with an executive official's
    discretionary author

    [[Page 644]]
    was held to be perfecting (July 30, 1990, p. ----); but striking the
    date and inserting a new trigger (the enactment of other legislation),
    was held to be additional legislation (July 30, 1990, p. ----).

    Sec. 842f. Waivers; amending legislation permitted
    to remain.

      The House  may, by agreeing to a report from the Committee on Rules or
    by adopting an order under suspension of the rules, allow legislation on
    general appropriation bills (IV, 3260-3263, 3839-3845). A paragraph
    which proposes legislation or an unauthorized appropriation being
    permitted to remain, by special order or by failure to raise a point of
    order, may be perfected by germane amendment (IV, 3823-3835, 3838; VII,
    1405, 1413-1415; June 9, 1954, pp. 5963-64; Sept. 11, 1985, p. 23398;
    June 14, 1988, p. 14341), but this does not permit an amendment which
    adds additional legislation (IV, 3836, 3837, 3862; VII, 1402-1436; Dec.
    9, 1971, pp. 4595-96; Aug. 1, 1973, pp. 27291-92; June 10, 1977, p.
    1802; June 28, 1988, pp. 16203, 16213; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18172; Nov. 15,
    1989, p. 29004), or earmarks for unauthorized purposes (July 17, 1985,
    p. 19435; July 17, 1986, p. 16918), or earmarks by directing a new use
    of funds not required by law (July 26, 1985, pp. 20811, 20813), or
    indirectly increases an unauthorized amount by adding to that amnount
    with new language at another portion of the bill (July 12, 1995, p. ----
    ). An amendment to a general appropriation bill is not subject to a
    point of order as adding legislation if containing, verbatim, a
    legislative provision already contained in the bill and permitted to
    remain (Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23519). To a paragraph permitted to remain
    though containing a legislative proviso restricting the obligation of
    funds until a date within the fiscal year, an amendment striking the
    delimiting date, thus applying the restriction for the entire year,

    Sec. 842g. Senate amendments.

      The principle  seems to be
    generally well accepted that the House proposing legislation on a
    general appropriation bill should recede if the other House persists in
    its objection (IV, 3904-3908), and clause 2 of rule XX (Sec. 829, supra)
    prohibits House conferees from agreeing to a Senate amendment which
    proposes legislation on an appropriation bill without specific authority
    from the House. But where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a
    general appropriation bill is, pursuant to the edict of clause 2 of rule
    XX, reported back from conference in disagreement, a motion to concur in
    the Senate amendment with a further amendment is in order, even if the
    proposed amendment adds legislation to that contained in the Senate
    amendment, and the only test is whether the proposed amendment is
    germane to the Senate amendment reported in disagreement (IV, 3909;
    VIII, 3188, 3189; Speaker McCormack, Dec. 15, 1970, pp. 41504-05; Aug.
    1, 1979, pp. 22007-11; Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, pp. 35520-21;
    June 30, 1987, p. 18308).

    Sec. 843a. Limitations on appropriation bills
    generally.

      Although the  rule forbids on any general appropriation bill a provision
    ``changing existing law,'' which is construed to mean legislation
    generally, the practice of the House has established the principle that
    certain ``limitations'' may be admitted. Just as the House may decline
    to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law, so may it by limitation
    prohibit the use of the money for part of the purpose while
    appropriating for the remainder of it (IV, 3936; VII, 1595). The
    language of the limitation provides that no part of the appropriation
    under consideration shall be used for a certain designated purpose (IV,
    3917-3926; VII, 1580). And this designated purpose may reach the
    question of qualifications, for while it is not in order to legislate as
    to the qualifications of the recipients of an appropriation the House
    may specify that no part of the appropriation shall go to recipients
    lacking certain qualifications (IV, 3942-3952; VII, 1655; June 4, 1970,
    pp. 18412-13; June 27, 1974, p. 21662; Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34712; June 9,
    1978, p. 16990). The limitation must apply solely to the money of the
    appropriation under consideration (VII, 1597, 1600, 1720; Feb. 26, 1958,
    p. 2895), and may not be made applicable to money appropriated in other
    acts (IV, 3927, 3928; VII, 1495, 1525; June 28, 1971, pp. 22442-43; June
    27, 1974, pp. 21670-72; May 13, 1981, p. 9663), and may not require
    funds available to an agency in any future fiscal year for a certain
    purpose be subject to limitations specified in advance in appropriations
    Acts (May 8, 1986, p. 10156). A restriction on authority to incur
    obligations is legislative in nature and not a limitation on funds (July
    13, 1987, p. 19507; Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----).

    [[Page 645]]
    on Appropriations from limiting their availability to the fiscal year
    covered by the bill unless existing law mandates availability beyond the
    fiscal year (June 25, 1974, p. 21040; see also Procedure, ch. 25, secs.
    9-17). The fact that a provision would constitute legislation for only a
    year does not make it a limitation in order under the rule (IV, 3936).
    Nor may a proposition to construe a law be admitted (IV, 3936-3938).
    Care should also be taken that the language of limitation be not such
    as, when fairly construed, would change existing law (IV, 3976-3983) or
    justify an executive officer in assuming an intent to change existing
    law (IV, 3984; VII, 1706). Although the Committee on Appropriations may
    include in a general appropriation bill language not in existing law
    limiting the use of funds in the bill, if such language also constitutes
    an appropriation it must be authorized by law (June 21, 1988, p. 15439).
      The fact that existing law authorizes funds to be available until
    expended or without regard to fiscal year limitation does not prevent
    the Committee

    Sec. 843b. Effect of limitation on executive
    discretion.

      The limitation  may not be applied directly to the official functions of
    executive officers (IV, 3957-3966; VII, 1673, 1678, 1685), but it may
    restrict executive discretion so far as this may be done by a simple
    negative on the use of the appropriation (IV, 3968-3972; VII, 1583,
    1653, 1694; Sept. 14, 1972, pp. 30749-50; June 21, 1974, pp. 20601-02;
    Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34716). An appropriation may be withheld from a
    designated object by a negative limitation on the use of funds, although
    contracts may be left unsatisfied thereby (IV, 3987; July 10, 1975, p.
    22005); but coupling a denial of an appropriation with a negative
    restriction on official duties constitutes by reason of the use of a
    double negative an affirmative direction and is not in order (VII, 1690-
    1692). Similarly, using a double negative to limit the availability of
    funds to prohibit the obligation of funds for an unauthorized project
    (effectively authorizing an unauthorized project) is not in order (Sept.
    23, 1993, p. ----).

      But such limitations must not give affirmative directions (IV, 3854-
    3859, 3975; VII, 1637), and must not impose new duties upon an executive
    officer (VII, 1676; June 11, 1968, p. 16712; July 31, 1969, pp. 21631-
    33); and may not directly interfere with discretionary authority in law
    by establishing a level of funding below which expenditures may not be
    made (VII, 1704; July 20, 1978, p. 21856).

    [[Page 646]]
    to the extent of its denial of availability of funds (VII, 1694; Oct.
    9, 1974, p. 34716).
      In construing a proposed limitation, if the Chair finds the purpose to
    be legislative, in that the intent is to restrict executive discretion
    to a degree that may be fairly termed a change in policy rather than a
    matter of administrative detail, he should sustain the point of order,
    as where a limitation is accompanied by language stating a legislative
    motive or purpose in carrying out the limitation (Aug. 8, 1978, p.
    24969), or where existing law and the Constitution require a census to
    be taken of all persons and an amendment seeks to preclude the use of
    funds to exclude another class ``known'' to the Secretary (Aug. 1, 1989,
    p. 17156). However, language in a general appropriation bill may, by
    negatively refusing to include funds for all or part of an authorized
    executive function, thereby affect policy

      It is not in order, even by language in the form of a limitation, to
    restrict not the use or amount of appropriated funds but the
    discretionary authority conferred by law to administer their
    expenditure, such as by limiting the percentage of funds that may be
    apportioned for expenditure within a certain period of time (Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 51.23), or by precluding the obligation
    of certain funds in the bill until funds provided by another Act have
    been obligated (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 48.8). The
    burden is on the proponent to show that such a proposal does not change
    existing law by restricting the timing of the expenditure of funds
    rather than their availability for specified objects (Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, secs. 64.23 and 80.5).

      As long as a limitation on the use of funds restricts the expenditure
    of Federal funds carried in the bill without changing existing law, the
    limitation is in order, even if the Federal funds in question are
    commingled with non-Federal funds which would have to be accounted for
    separately in carrying out the limitation (Aug. 20, 1980, pp. 22171-72).
    An amendment providing that no Federal funds provided in the District of
    Columbia general appropriation bill be used to perform abortions is not
    legislation, since Federal officials have the responsibility to account
    for all appropriations for the annual Federal payment and for
    disbursement of all taxes collected by the District of Columbia,
    pursuant to the D.C. Code (July 17, 1979, p. 19066).

    [[Page 647]]
    amendment prohibiting the use of funds to carry out any ruling of the
    Internal Revenue Service which rules that taxpayers are not entitled to
    certain charitable deductions was held in order as a limitation, since
    merely descriptive of an existing ruling already promulgated and not
    requiring any new determinations as to the applicability of the
    limitation to other categories of taxpayers (July 16, 1979, pp. 18808-
    10). An amendment reducing the availability of funds for trade
    adjustment assistance by amounts of unemployment insurance entitlements
    was held in order where the law establishing trade adjustment assistance
    already required the disbursing agency to take into consideration levels
    of unemployment insurance in determining payment levels (June 18, 1980,
    pp. 15355-56). A limitation precluding funds for any transit project
    exceeding a specified cost-effectiveness index was held not to impose
    new duties where the Chair was persuaded that the limitation applied to
    projects for which indexes were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993,
    p. ----). A limitation precluding the use of funds to enforce FAA
    regulations to require domestic air carriers to surrender more than a
    specified number of ``slots'' at a given airport in preference of
    international air carriers was held not to impose new duties on FAA
    officials because existing regulations already required the FAA to
    determine the origin of withdrawn slots (Sept. 23, 1993, p. ----). An
    exception stating that the limitation does not prohibit the use of funds
    for designated Federal activities which are already authorized by law in
    more general terms, was held in order as not containing legislation
    (June 27, 1979, pp. 17033-35), as was an exception from a valid
    limitation prohibiting construction of that limitation in such a way as
    to prevent funding of a particular authorized activity (Mar. 24, 1944,
    p. 3095; June 18, 1991, p. ----). The following amendments also have
    been in order: denying use of funds to eliminate an existing legal
    requirement for sureties on custom bonds (June 27, 1984, p. 19101);
    denying use of funds by any federal official in any manner which would
    prevent a provision of existing law from being enforced (relating to
    import restrictions) (June 27, 1984, p. 19101); and denying use of funds
    for any reduction in Customs Service regions or for any consolidation of
    Customs Service offices (June 27, 1984, p. 19102). An amendment in the
    form of a limitation prohibiting the use of funds in a general
    appropriation bill for the construction of certain facilities unless
    such construction were subject to a project agreement was held not in
    order during the reading of the bill, even though existing law directed
    federal officials to enter into such project agreements, on the ground
    that limitation amendments are in order during the reading only where
    existing law requires or permits the inclusion of limiting language in
    an appropriation Act, and not merely where the limitation is alleged to
    be ``consistent with existing law'' (June 28, 1988, p. 16267).
    Similarly, language in a general appropriation bill containing an
    averment necessary to qualify for certain scorekeeping under the Budget
    Act was conceded to be legislation (July 20, 1989, p. 15374), even
    though the Budget Act contemplates that expenditures may be mandated to
    occur before or following a fiscal period

    [[Page 648]]
    if the law making those expenditures specifies that the timing is the
    result of a ``significant'' policy change (July 20, 1989, p. 15374).

    Sec. 843c. Limitations consistent with existing
    law.

      An amendment  denying the use of funds in the bill to pay the salaries of
    federal officials who perform certain functions under existing law is a
    proper limitation if the description of those duties precisely follows
    existing law and does not require them to perform new duties (June 24,
    1976, p. 20373), just as an amendment denying such funds to a Federal
    official not in compliance with an existing law which he is charged with
    enforcing is a valid limitation placing no new duties on that Federal
    official (Sept. 10, 1981, p. 20110). The fact that a limitation on the
    use of funds may indirectly interfere with an executive official's
    discretionary authority by denying the use of funds (June 24, 1976, p.
    20408) or may impose certain incidental burdens on executive officials
    (Aug. 25, 1976, p. 27737) does not destroy the character of the
    limitation as long as it does not directly amend existing law and is
    descriptive of functions and findings already required to be undertaken
    by existing law. As it is in order by way of a limitation to deny the
    use of funds for implementation of an executive order, an amendment
    precisely describing the contents of the executive order does not
    constitute legislation solely for that reason (Mar. 16, 1977, p. 7748).
    And the fact that the regulation for which funds are denied may have
    been promulgated pursuant to court order and pursuant to constitutional
    provisions is an argument on the merits of the amendment and does not
    render it legislative in nature (Aug. 19, 1980, pp. 21981-84). An

                   ``holman rule'' on retrenching expenditures

    Sec. 844a. Legislation reducing
    expenditures.

      Decisions under  the so-called ``Holman Rule'' in clause 2 of rule XXI
    have been rare in the modern practice of the House. The trend in
    construing language in general appropriation bills or amendments thereto
    has been to minimize the importance of the ``Holman Rule'' in those
    cases where the decision can be made on other grounds. The practice of
    using limitations in appropriation bills has been perfected in recent
    years so that most modern decisions by the Chair deal with distinctions
    between such limitations and matters which are deemed to be legislation
    (see Secs. 842 and 843, supra). Under the modern practice, the
    ``Holman Rule'' only applies where an obvious reduction is achieved by
    the provision in question and does not apply to limiting language
    unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill (July 16, 1979, pp.
    18808-10). It has no application to an amendment to an appropriation
    bill which does not legislate but is merely a negative limitation citing
    but not changing existing law (June 18, 1980, pp. 15355-56).

      A paragraph containing legislation reported in an appropriation bill
    to be in order must on its face show a retrenchment of a type which
    conforms to the requirements of the rule (Chairman Lehlbach, Mar. 17,
    1926, p. 5804).

    [[Page 649]]

      The reduction of expenditure must appear as a necessary result, in
    order to bring an amendment or provision within the exception to the
    rule. It is not sufficient that such reduction would probably, or would
    in the opinion of the Chair, result therefrom (IV, 3887; VII, 1530-
    1534). Thus, an amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that
    appropriations made in that act are hereby reduced by $7 billion, though
    legislative in form, was held in order under the ``Holman Rule''
    exception (Apr. 5, 1966, p. 7689), but an amendment providing for
    certain reductions of appropriations carried in the bill based on the
    President's budget estimates was held not to show a reduction on its
    face and to provide merely speculative reductions (Deschler's
    Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. ----). An
    amendment authorizing the President to reduce each appropriation in the
    bill by not more than ten percent was ruled out as legislation
    conferring new authority on the President (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June
    6, 1984, p. 15120). An amendment reducing an unauthorized amount
    permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill is in order as a
    retrenchment under this clause (Oct. 1, 1975, p. 31058). An amendment to
    a general appropriation bill denying the availability of funds to
    certain recipients but which requires federal officials to make
    additional determinations as to the qualifications of recipients is
    legislation and is not a retrenchment of expenditures where it is not
    apparent that the prohibition will reduce the amounts covered by the
    bill (June 26, 1973, p. 21389).

      The amendment must not only show on its face an attempt to retrench
    but must also be germane to some provision in the bill even though
    offered by direction of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject
    matter of the amendment (VII, 1549; Dec. 16, 1911, p. 442). An amendment
    providing that appropriations ``herein and heretofore made'' shall be
    reduced by $70 million through the reduction of Federal employees as the
    President determines was held to be legislative and not germane to the
    bill, since it went to funds other than those carried therein, and was
    therefore not within the ``Holman Rule'' exception (Oct. 18, 1966, p.
    27425).

      An amendment reducing an amount in an appropriation bill for the
    Postal Service and prohibiting the use of funds therein to implement
    special bulk third-class rates for political committees was held in
    order since not specifically requiring new determination and since
    constituting a retrenchment of expenditures even if assumed to be
    legislative (July 13, 1979, pp. 18453-55).

      As long as an amendment calls for an obvious reduction at some point
    in time during the fiscal year, the amendment is in order under the
    ``Holman Rule'' even if the reduction takes place in the future in an
    amount actually determined when the reduction takes place (for example,
    by formula) (VII, 1491, 1505; July 30, 1980, pp. 20499-20503). To an
    amendment that is in order under the ``Holman Rule,'' containing
    legislation but retrenching expenditures by formula for every agency
    funded by the bill, an amendment exempting from that reduction several
    specific programs does not add further legislation and is in order (July
    30, 1980, pp. 20499-20503).

      A motion to recommit the District of Columbia appropriation bill with
    instructions to reduce the proportion of the fund appropriated from the
    Public Treasury from one-half, as provided in the bill, to one-fourth of
    the entire appropriation is in order, since the effect of the amendment
    if adopted would reduce the expenditure of public money although not
    reducing the amount of the appropriation (VII, 1518).

      The term ``retrenchment'' means the reduction of the amount of money
    to be taken out of the Federal Treasury by the bill, and therefore a
    reduction of the amount of money to be contributed toward the expenses
    of the District of Columbia is in order as a retrenchment (VII, 1502).

      An amendment proposed to an item for the recoinage of uncurrent
    fractional silver, which amendment struck out the amount appropriated
    and added a provision for the coinage of all the bullion in the Treasury
    into standard silver dollars, the cost of such coinage and recoinage to
    be paid out of the Government's seigniorage, was held not to be in order
    under the rule; first, because not germane to the subject matter of the
    bill (the sundry civil); second, because it did not appear that any
    retrenchment of expenditure would result, the seigniorage being the
    property of the Government as other funds in the Treasury (VII, 1547).

    [[Page 650]]
    provide routes and make contracts in certain cases, with the further
    provision ``and the amount of appropriation herein for star routes is
    hereby reduced to $500.'' A point of order made against the first or
    legislative part of the amendment was sustained, which decision was, on
    appeal, affirmed by the committee (VII, 1555).
      To an item of appropriation for inland transportation of mails by star
    routes an amendment was offered requiring the Postmaster General to

      To a clause appropriating for the foreign mail service an amendment
    reducing the appropriation, and in addition repealing the act known as
    the ``subsidy act,'' was held not in order because the repealing of this
    act was not germane to the appropriation bill; and that to be in order
    both branches of the amendment must be germane to the bill (VII, 1548).

      A provision in the agricultural appropriation bill transferring the
    supervision of the importation of animals from the Treasury to the
    Department of Agriculture is out of order, being a provision changing
    law and not retrenching expenditure (IV, 3886).

      Where a paragraph containing new legislation provides in one part for
    a discharge of employees, which means a retrenchment, and in another
    part embodies legislation to bring about the particular retrenchment
    which in turn shows on its face an expenditure the amount of which is
    not apparent, the Chair is unable to hold that the net result will
    retrench expenditures. But where the additional legislation does not
    show on its face an additional expenditure, the Chair will not speculate
    as to a possible expenditure under the additional legislation (VII,
    1500).

    [[Page 651]]

      As explained in the annotation in Sec. 834, supra, the amendment of
    clause 2(b) in the 98th Congress narrowed the ``Holman Rule'' exception
    to the general prohibition against legislation to cover only
    retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill, and not
    retrenchments resulting from reduction of the number and salary of
    officers of the United States or of the compensation of any person paid
    out of the U.S. Treasury. Accordingly, the Chair held out of order an
    amendment mandating the reduction of certain Federal salaries and
    expenses as not confined to a reduction of funds in the bill (June 17,
    1994, p. ----). Paragraph (b) also eliminated separate authority
    conferred upon legislative committees or commissions with proper
    jurisdiction to report amendments retrenching expenditures, and
    permitted legislative committees to recommend such retrenchments by
    reduction of amounts covered by the bill to the Appropriations Committee
    for discretionary inclusion in the reported bill. Paragraph (d) as added
    in the 98th Congress provides a new procedure for consideration of all
    retrenchment amendments only when reading of the bill has been completed
    and only if the Committee of the Whole does not adopt a motion to rise
    and report the bill back to the House. Other decisions which involved
    interpretation of the ``Holman Rule,'' but which do not reflect the
    current form or interpretation of that rule, are found in IV, 3846,
    3885-3892; VII, 1484, 1486-1492, 1498, 1500, 1515, 1563, 1564, 1569;
    June 1, 1892, p. 4920.

    Sec. 844b. Content of reports on appropriation
    bills.

      3. A report  from the Committee on Appropriations accompanying any general
    appropriation bill making an appropriation for any purpose shall contain
    a concise statement describing fully the effect of any provision of the
    accompanying bill which directly or indirectly changes the application
    of existing law, and shall contain a list of all appropriations
    contained in the bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by
    law (except for classified intelligence or national security programs,
    projects, or activities).

      This clause became a part of the rules under the Committee Reform
    Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
    Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and the subsequent clauses of this rule were
    renumbered at that time. This clause was amended on January 14, 1975 (H.
    Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 32) to confine its applicability to general
    appropriation bills, and again in the 104th Congress to add the last
    requirement concerning unauthorized items (sec. 215(d), H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 1995, p. ----).

    Sec. 845. Restriction on the reference of
    claims.

      4. No bill  for the payment or adjudication of any private claim against
    the Government shall be referred, except by unanimous consent, to any
    other than the following committees, namely: To the Committee on
    International Relations or to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    [[Page 652]]
    War Claims, Public Lands, and Accounts, in addition to the Committees
    on Foreign Affairs (now International Relations) and the Judiciary.
    Certain private bills, resolutions and amendments are barred (Sec. 852).
    Under this clause unanimous consent is required for the reference of a
    bill for the payment of a private claim to a committee other than the
    Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on International Relations
    (May 4, 1978, p. 12615).

      The present form of this clause was made effective January 2, 1947, as
    a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), was
    further amended on March 19, 1975 to reflect the change of the name of
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs to International Relations by H. Res.
    163 (p. 7343), was again amended on February 5, 1979 to change
    International Relations back to Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 89, pp. 1848-
    49), and was once again amended on January 4, 1995, to change the name
    back to International Relations (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, 104th Cong., p.
    ----). The old rule, adopted in 1885 and amended May 29, 1936, provided
    that private claims bills be referred to a Committee on Invalid
    Pensions, Claims,

    Sec. 846a. Restriction of power to report
    appropriations.

      5. (a) No  bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall
    be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report
    appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in
    order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by
    a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of order on an
    appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto
    may be raised at any time.

      This portion of the rule was adopted June 1, 1920 (VII, 2133).

    [[Page 653]]
    amendment is not separately before the House during consideration of
    the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. ----).
      A point of order under this rule cannot be raised against a motion to
    suspend the rules (VIII, 3426), against a motion to discharge a
    nonappropriating committee from consideration of a bill carrying an
    appropriation (VII, 2144), or against a Senate amendment to an
    appropriation bill (VII, 1572), but it may be directed against an item
    of appropriation in a Senate bill (VII, 2136, 2147; July 30, 1957, pp.
    13056, 13181-82), and if the House deletes a provision in a Senate bill
    under this rule, the bill is messaged to the Senate with the deletion in
    the form of an amendment. The point of order may be made against an
    appropriation in a Senate bill that, although not reported in the House,
    is considered in lieu of a reported House ``companion bill'' (VII, 2137;
    Mar. 29, 1933, p. 988). This clause applies to an amendment proposed to
    a Senate amendment to a House bill not reported from the Committee on
    Appropriations (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638-42). The rule does not apply to
    private bills since the committees having jurisdiction of bills for the
    payment of private claims may report bills making appropriations within
    the limits of their jurisdiction (VII, 2135; Dec. 12, 1924, p. 538). The
    point of order under this rule does not apply to an appropriation in a
    bill which has been taken away from a nonappropriating committee by a
    motion to discharge (VII, 1019a). The point of order under this rule
    does not apply to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
    ``self-executing'' the adoption in the House to a reported bill of an
    amendment containing an appropriation, since the

      The provision in this clause that a point of order against an
    amendment containing an appropriation to a legislative bill may be made
    ``at any time'' has been interpreted to require that the point of order
    be raised during the pendency of the amendment under the five-minute
    rule (Mar. 18, 1946, p. 2365; Apr. 28, 1975, pp. 12043-44), and a point
    of order will lie against an amendment during its pendency, even in its
    amended form, although the point of order is against the amendment as
    amended by a substitute and no point of order was raised against the
    substitute prior to its adoption (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 12043). But the
    point of order must be raised during the initial consideration of the
    bill or amendment under the five-minute rule, and a point of order
    against similar language permitted to remain in the House version and
    included in a conference report on a bill will not lie, since the only
    rule prohibiting such inclusion (clause 2 of rule XX) is limited to
    language originally contained in a Senate amendment where the House
    conferees have not been specifically authorized to agree thereto (May 1,
    1975, p. 12752). Where the House has adopted a resolution waiving points
    of order against certain appropriations in a legislative bill, a point
    of order may nevertheless be raised against an amendment to the bill
    containing an identical provision, since under this rule a point of
    order may be raised against the amendment ``at any time'' (Apr. 23,
    1975, p. 11512). A point of order against a direct appropriation in a
    bill initially reported from a legislative committee and then
    sequentially referred to and reported adversely by the Committee on
    Appropriations was conceded and sustained as in violation of this clause
    (Nov. 10, 1975, p. 35611).

      The point of order should be directed to the item of appropriation in
    the bill and not to the act of reporting the bill (VII, 2143), and
    cannot be directed to the entire bill (VII, 2142; Apr. 28, 1975, p.
    12043).

    [[Page 654]]
    priation or a portion of an appropriation already made for one purpose
    to another (VII, 2146; Mar. 29, 1933, p. 988; Aug. 10, 1988, p. 21719),
    or for one fiscal year to another (Mar. 26, 1992, p. ----), is not in
    order. An amendment expanding the definition in existing law of
    recipients under a federal subsidy program was held to permit a new use
    of funds already appropriated in violation of this clause (May 11, 1976,
    pp. 13409-11); and a provision in a legislative bill authorizing the
    use, without a subsequent appropriation, of funds directly appropriated
    by a previous statute for a new purpose constitutes an appropriation
    prohibited by this clause (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637-40). But a
    modification of such a provision making payments for such new purposes
    ``effective only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in
    advance in appropriation acts'' does not violate this clause (Oct. 1,
    1980, pp. 28638-42). A direction to a departmental officer to pay a
    certain sum out of unexpended balances is equivalent to an appropriation
    and not in order (VII, 2154). Language authorizing the use of funds of
    the Shipping Board is not in order (VII, 2147). A direction to pay out
    of Indian trust funds is not in order (VII, 2149). A provision in an
    authorization bill making excess foreign currencies immediately
    available for a new purpose is in violation of clause 5 of rule XXI
    (Aug. 3, 1971, pp. 29109-10). Provisions authorizing the collection of
    fees or user charges by Federal agencies and making the revenues
    collected therefrom available without further appropriation have been
    ruled out in violation of this clause (June 17, 1937, pp. 5915-18; Mar.
    29, 1972, pp. 10749-51), and the transfer of existing federal funds into
    a new Treasury trust fund to be immediately available for a new purpose
    has been construed as an appropriation (June 20, 1974, pp. 20273-75), as
    has a provision in a legislative bill transferring unexpended balances
    of appropriations from an existing agency to a new agency created
    therein (Apr. 9, 1979, pp. 7774-75). A provision in an omnibus
    reconciliation bill reported by the Budget Committee (pursuant to
    section 310(c)(2) of the Budget Act upon recommendation from the Energy
    and Commerce Committee) making a direct appropriation to carry out a
    part of the Energy Security Act was ruled out in violation of this
    clause (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28812). An amendment requiring the diversion
    of previously appropriated funds in lieu of the enactment of new budget
    authority if a maximum deficit amount under the Deficit Control Act of
    1985 is exceeded, though its stated purpose may be to avoid the
    sequestration of funds, may nevertheless be in violation of clause 5(a)
    as an appropriation on a legislative bill (Aug. 10, 1988, p. 21719).
      The point of order provided for in this clause is not applicable to
    propositions authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to use proceeds
    from the sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act (public debt
    transactions) for the purpose of making loans, since such loans do not
    constitute ``appropriations'' within the purview of the rule (June 28,
    1949, pp. 8536-38; Aug. 2, 1950, p. 11599), and is not applicable to
    language exempting loan guarantees in a legislative bill from statutory
    limitations on expenditures (July 16, 1974, p. 23344). Legislation
    authorizing the availability of certain loan receipts is not an
    appropriation where it can be shown that the actual availability of
    those receipts remains contingent upon subsequent enactment of an
    appropriation act (Sept. 10, 1975, p. 28300). The term ``appropriation''
    in the rule means the payment of funds from the Treasury, and the words
    ``warranted and make available for expenditure for payments'' are
    equivalent to ``is hereby appropriated'' and therefore not in order
    (VII, 2150). The words ``available until expended,'' making an
    appropriation already made for one year available for ensuing years, are
    not in order (VII, 2145). Language reappropriating, making available, or
    diverting an appro

    [[Page 655]]
    able only to the extent provided in appropriation Acts (see Sec. 1007,
    infra). See also Procedure, ch. 25, sec. 3, addressing appropriations on
    legislative bills generally.

      An amendment increasing the duties of a commission is not necessarily
    an appropriation (VII, 1578). Language authorizing payment from an
    appropriation to be made or authorizing payment from an appropriation
    that has not yet been made is in order (Jan. 31, 1923, p. 2794). Section
    401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 317) prohibits
    consideration in the House of any bill or resolution or amendment which
    provides new spending authority (as that term is defined in that
    section) unless that measure also provides that such new spending
    authority is to be avail

    Sec. 846b. Restriction on bills and amendments carrying
    taxes or tariffs.

      (b) No  bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff
    measure shall be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to
    report tax and tariff measures, nor shall an amendment in the House or
    proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure be in order
    during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a
    committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of order on a tax or
    tariff measure in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto
    may be raised at any time.

      Paragraph (b) was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983,
    p. 34). A point of order under this paragraph against a provision in a
    bill is in order at any time during consideration of the bill for
    amendment in Committee of the Whole (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18649). On October
    4, 1989, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, before ruling on
    several points of order under this paragraph, enunciated several
    guidelines to distinguish taxes and tariffs on the one hand and user or
    regulatory fees and other forms of revenue on the other (p. 23260). On
    the opening day of the 102d Congress Speaker Foley inserted in the
    Congressional Record a statement of jurisdictional concepts underlying
    those same distinctions and indicated his intention to exercise his
    referral authority under rule X in a manner consistent with this
    paragraph (Jan. 3, 1991, p. ----; see also Jan. 5, 1993, p. ----).

    [[Page 656]]
    nue collections and tax status or liability (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18649).
    Similarly, in determining whether an amendment to a general
    appropriation bill proposing a change in IRS funding priorities
    constitutes a tax measure proscribed by clause 5(b), the Chair will
    consider argument as to whether the change would necessarily or
    inevitably result in a loss or gain in tax liability and in tax
    collection (June 18, 1991, p. ----).
      Although in the case of most points of order against provisions in
    bills or against amendments the burden is on the proponent of the
    provision to show that it does not violate the cited rule, in the case
    of a point of order under clause 5(b) against a provision in or an
    amendment to a general appropriation bill affecting the use of funds
    therein (otherwise traditionally in order if admissible under clause 2
    of rule XXI), the burden is on the Member making the point of order to
    show a necessary, certain, and inevitable change in revenue collections
    or tax statuses or liabilities (Sept. 12, 1984, pp. 25108, 25109, 25120;
    July 26, 1985, p. 20806; Aug. 1, 1986, pp. 18649-50; July 13, 1990, p.
    ----; June 18, 1991, p. ----). Thus, in determining whether a limitation
    in a general appropriation bill constitutes a tax or tariff measure
    proscribed by clause 5(b), the Chair will consider argument as to
    whether the limitation effectively and inevitably changes reve

      A limitation on the use of funds contained in a general appropriation
    bill was held to violate clause 5(b) by denying the use of funds by the
    Customs Service to enforce duty-free entry laws with respect to certain
    imported commodities, thereby requiring the collection of revenues not
    otherwise provided for by law (Oct. 27, 1983, p. 29611). Similar rulings
    were issued: (1) where it was shown that the imposition of the
    restriction on IRS funding for the fiscal year would effectively and
    inevitably preclude the IRS from collecting revenues otherwise due and
    owing by law or require collection of revenue not legally due or owing
    (July 26, 1985, p. 20806; Aug. 1, 1986, pp. 18649, 18650); and (2) where
    a provision in a general appropriation bill prohibited the use of funds
    to impose or assess certain taxes due under specified portions of the
    Internal Revenue Code (July 13, 1990, p. ----). In the 98th Congress,
    the Chair sustained points of order under clause 5(b) against motions to
    concur in three Senate amendments to a general appropriation bill (not
    reported by the Committee on Ways and Means): (1) an amendment denying
    the use of funds in that or any other Act by the IRS to impose or assess
    any tax due under a designated provision of the Internal Revenue Code,
    thereby rendering the tax uncollectable through the use of any funds
    available to the agency (Sept. 12, 1984, p. 25108); (2) an amendment
    directing the Secretary of the Treasury to admit free of duty certain
    articles imported by a designated organization (Sept. 12, 1984, p.
    25109); and (3) an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 to expand the
    authority of the Customs Service to seize and use the proceeds from the
    sale of contraband imports to defray operational expenses, and to offset
    owed customs duties under one section of that law (Sept. 12, 1984, p.
    25120). An amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing to divert
    an increase in funding for the IRS from spot-checks to targeted audits
    was held not to constitute a tax within the meaning of clause 5(b)
    because it did not necessarily affect revenue collection levels or tax
    liabilities (June 18, 1991, p. ----).

    [[Page 657]]
    the following provisions in an omnibus budget reconciliation bill were
    ruled out: (1) a fee per passenger on cruise vessels, with revenues
    credited as proprietary receipts of the Coast Guard to be used for port
    safety, security, navigation, and antiterrorism activities (Oct. 4,
    1989, p. 23260); (2) a per acre ``ocean protection fee'' on oil and gas
    leaseholdings in the Outer Continental Shelf, with receipts to be used
    to offset costs of various ocean protection programs (Oct. 4, 1989, p.
    23261); (3) an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code relating to the
    tax deductibility of pension fund contributions (Oct. 4, 1989, p.
    23262); (4) a fee incident to termination of employee benefit plans,
    with receipts to be applied to enforcement and administration of plans
    remaining with the system (Oct. 4, 1989, p. 23262); and (5) a fee
    incident to the filing of various pension benefit plan reports required
    by law, with revenues to be transferred to the Department of Labor for
    the enforcement of that law (Oct. 5, 1989, p. 23328).
      In the 99th Congress, the following provisions in a reconciliation
    bill reported from the Budget Committee were ruled out as tax measures
    not reported from the Committee on Ways and Means: (1) containing a
    recommendation from the Committee on Education and Labor excluding
    certain interest on obligations from the Student Loan Marketing
    Association from application of the Internal Revenue Code, affecting
    interest deductions against income taxes (Oct. 24, 1985, pp. 28776,
    28827); and (2) containing a recommendation from the Committee on
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries expanding tax benefits available to
    shipowners through a capital construction fund (Oct. 24, 1985, pp.
    28802, 28827). In the 101st Congress,

    -
    [[Page 658]]

      To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor
    authorizing financial assistance to unemployed individuals for
    employment opportunities, an amendment providing instead for tax
    incentives to stimulate employment was held to be a tax measure in
    violation of this paragraph (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145). A provision in a
    bill reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs imposing a uniform
    fee at ports of entry to be collected by the Customs Service as a
    condition of importation of a commodity was held to constitute a tariff
    within the meaning of this paragraph (June 4, 1985, p. 14009), as was an
    amendment to a bill reported from that committee amending the tariff
    schedules to deny ``most favored nation'' trade treatment to a certain
    nation (July 11, 1985, p. 18590). A provision in a general appropriation
    bill creating a new tariff classification was held to constitute a
    tariff under this paragraph (June 15, 1994, p. ----). A motion to concur
    in a Senate amendment constituting a tariff measure (imposing an import
    ban on certain dutiable goods) to a bill reported by a committee not
    having tariff jurisdiction was ruled out under this paragraph (Sept. 30,
    1988, p. 27316). A proposal to increase a fee incident to the filing of
    a securities registration statement, with the proceeds to be deposited
    in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts, was held to
    constitute a tax within the meaning of this paragraph because the amount
    of revenue derived and the manner of its deposit indicated a purpose to
    defray costs of government, generally (Oct. 23, 1990, p. ----). To a
    bill reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, an
    amendment increasing a user fee was ruled out as a tax measure where the
    fee overcollected to offset a reduction in another fee, thus attenuating
    the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
    government activity for which it was assessed (May 9, 1995, p. ----). To
    a bill reported by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, an
    amendment proposing sundry changes in the Federal income tax by direct
    amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 was ruled out of order
    as carrying a tax measure in violation of this paragraph (Sept. 16,
    1992, p. ----).

    Sec. 846c. Threefifths vote to increase income tax
    rates.

      (c) No  bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
    carrying a Federal income tax rate increase shall be considered as
    passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than
    three-fifths of the Members voting.

      Paragraph (c) was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(a), H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). On one occasion the Chair held that a provision
    repealing a ceiling on total tax liability attributable to a net capital
    gain was not subject to this paragraph (Apr. 5, 1995, p. ----). This
    paragraph does not apply to a concurrent resolution (Speaker Gingrich,
    May 18, 1995, p. ----).

    Sec. 846d. Prohibition against retroactive income tax
    rate increase.

      (d) It  shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint
    resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a retroactive
    Federal income tax rate increase. For purposes of this paragraph a
    Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it applies to a
    period beginning prior to the enactment of the provision.

      Paragraph (d) was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(b), H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 659]]

    Sec. 847. Reappropriations
    prohibited.

      6. No general  appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be received
    or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating unexpended
    balances of appropriations; except that this provision shall not apply
    to appropriations in continuation of appropriations for public works on
    which work has commenced, and shall not apply to transfers of unexpended
    balances within the department or agency for which they were originally
    appropriated, reported by the Committee on Appropriations.

      This provision from section 139(c) of the Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) was made part of the standing rules January
    3, 1953 (p. 24). Prior to the adoption of this rule in 1946, a
    reappropriation of an unexpended balance for an object authorized by law
    was in order on a general appropriation bill (IV, 3591, 3592; VII, 1156,
    1158). This clause was amended in the 99th Congress by section 228(b) of
    the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-
    177, Dec. 12, 1985) to permit the Committee on Appropriations to report
    certain transfers of unexpended balances.

      A provision in a general appropriation bill, or an amendment thereto,
    providing that funds for a certain purpose are to be derived by
    continuing the availability of funds previously appropriated for a prior
    fiscal year is in violation of clause 6 of rule XXI (Aug. 20, 1951, pp.
    10393-94; Mar. 29, 1960, p. 6862; June 17, 1960, p. 13138; June 20,
    1973, pp. 20530-31; July 29, 1982, p. 18625; June 28, 1988, p. 16255),
    and a reappropriation of unexpended prior year balances prohibited by
    this clause is not in order under the guise of a ``Holman Rule''
    exception to clause 2 of rule XXI (Oct. 18, 1966, pp. 27424-25). An
    amendment to a general appropriation bill making any appropriations
    which are available for the current fiscal year available for certain
    new purposes was held out of order under this clause since it was not
    confined to the funds in the bill and would permit reappropriation of
    unexpended balances (Oct. 1, 1975, p. 31090). That appropriations may be
    authorized in law for a specified object does not permit an amendment to
    a general appropriation bill to include legislative language mandating
    the reappropriation of funds from other Acts (July 28, 1992, p. ----).

      This rule, however, is not applicable when the reappropriation
    language is identical to legislative authorization language enacted
    subsequent to the adoption of the rule, since the law is a more recent
    expression of the will of the House (Sept. 5, 1961, p. 18133), nor when
    a measure transferring unobligated balances of previously appropriated
    funds contains legislative provisions and rules changes but no
    appropriation of new budget authority and is neither in the form of an
    appropriation bill nor the subject of a privileged report by the
    Committee on Appropriations under rule XI (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3239).

      The return of an unexpended balance to the Treasury is in order (IV,
    3594).

    [[Page 660]]
    three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays).

    Sec. 848. Printed hearings and reports on
    appropriation bills.

      7. No general  appropriation bill shall be considered in the
    House until printed committee hearings and a committee report thereon
    have been available for the Members of the House for at least

      This provision from section 139(a) of the Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1946 was made a part of the standing rules January 3, 1953 (p.
    24), and was amended (by the addition of the parenthetical clause) on
    January 22, 1971 (p. 144). In counting the ``three calendar days''
    specified in the clause, the date the bill is filed or the date on which
    it is to be called up for consideration are counted, but not both (May
    26, 1969, pp. 13720-21). Clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI became applicable to
    all other reports from the Committee on Appropriations under the
    Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
    988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).

    Sec. 848a. Reservation of points of order.

      8.  At the time
    any appropriation bill is reported, all points of order shall be
    considered as reserved.

      Clause 8 was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 1995, p. ----), rendering unnecessary the former practice that a
    Member reserve points of order when a general appropriation bill was
    referred to the calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the
    state of the Union, in order that provisions in violation of rule XXI
    could be stricken in the Committee of the Whole (see Sec. 835, supra).