    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 111th Congress]
    [111st Congress]
    [House Document 110-162]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 836-891]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XXI

    Reservation of certain points of order
                          restrictions on certain bills

    1035. Reservation of points of order.

      1.  At the time a
    general appropriation bill is reported, all points of order against
    provisions therein shall be considered as reserved.

    General appropriation bills and amendments
      This clause was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), 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. 1044, infra).
    Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
    provision was found in former clause 8 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).

    1036. Unauthorized appropriations in reported
    general appropriation bills or amendments thereto.

      2. (a)(1)  An appropriation
    may not be reported in a general appropriation bill, and may not be in
    order as an amendment thereto, for an expenditure not previously
    authorized by law, except to continue appropriations for public works
    and objects that are already in progress.

    [[Page 837]]

    originally appropriated that are reported by the Committee on
    Appropriations.

    Sec. 1037. Reappropriations prohibited.

      (2)  A
    reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations may not be
    reported in a general appropriation bill, and may not be in order as an
    amendment thereto, except to continue appropriations for public works
    and objects that are already in progress. This subparagraph does not
    apply to transfers of unexpended balances within the department or
    agency for which they were

    Sec. 1038. Legislation in reported general appropriation
    bills; exceptions.

      (b)  A provision changing existing law may not be
    reported in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making
    the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or possession of
    information not required by existing law for the period of the
    appropriation, except germane provisions that 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 a
    legislative committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter) and
    except rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts.

    Sec. 1039. Legislation or limitations in amendments to
    general appropriation bills.

      (c)  An amendment to a general appropriation
    bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, including an
    amendment making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
    possession of information not required by existing law for the period of
    the appropriation. Except as provided in paragraph (d), an amendment
    proposing a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in
    existing law for the period of the limitation shall not be in order
    during consideration of a general appropriation bill.

    [[Page 838]]

    ments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the Majority Leader
    or a designee, have precedence over motions to amend the bill. If such a
    motion to rise and report is rejected or not offered, amendments
    proposing limitations not specifically contained or authorized in
    existing law for the period of the limitation or proposing germane
    amendments that retrench expenditures by reductions of amounts of money
    covered by the bill may be considered.

    Sec. 1040. Motion to rise and report as preferential to
    amendments.

      (d)  After a general appropriation bill has been read for
    amendment, a motion that the Committee of the Whole House on the state
    of the Union rise and report the bill to the House with such amend

    Sec. 1041. Designated emergencies in reported
    appropriation bills.

      (e)  A provision other than an appropriation
    designated an emergency under section 251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the
    Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, a rescission of
    budget authority, or a reduction in direct spending or an amount for a
    designated emergency may not be reported in an appropriation bill or
    joint resolution containing an emergency designation under section
    251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of such Act and may not be in order as an
    amendment thereto.

    [[Page 839]]

    of order against such portions) and are not subject to a demand for
    division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

    Sec. 1042. Offsetting amendments en bloc to appropriation
    bills.

      (f)  During the reading of an appropriation bill for amendment in
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 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
    under this paragraph, such amendments may amend portions of the bill not
    yet read for amendment (following disposition of any points

    Sec. 1043. History of clause 2 of rule XXI.

      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 that 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 reinserted through the 53d Congress until 1894. It was
    again dropped in the 54th Congress from 1895 until reinserted 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).
    Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
    its rules in the 106th Congress, including a change to clause 2(a)(2) to
    clarify that the point of order lies against the offending provision in
    the text and not against consideration of the entire bill. At that time
    former clause 6 was transferred to clause 2(a)(2) and former clause 2(a)
    became clause 2(a)(1) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

      Paragraph (a)(1) (formerly paragraph (a)) retained the prohibition
    against unauthorized appropriations in general appropriation bills and
    amendments thereto except in continuation of works in progress.

    [[Page 840]]

      Paragraph (a)(2) (formerly clause 6), from section 139(c) of the
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190f(c)), was made part
    of the standing rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24).
    Previously, 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 provision 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) to permit the Committee on
    Appropriations to report transfers of unexpended balances within the
    department or agency for which originally appropriated.

      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 in
    appropriation Acts, was added in the 99th Congress by the Balanced
    Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (sec. 228(a), P.L. 99-
    177). The latter feature of the paragraph does not extend to a
    rescission of budget authority provided by a law other than an
    appropriation Act (see, Sec. 1052, infra). In the 105th Congress
    paragraph (b) was amended to treat as legislation a provision reported
    in a general appropriation bill that makes funding contingent on whether
    circumstances not made determinative by existing law are ``known'' (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

      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. In the 105th Congress paragraph (c)
    was amended to treat as legislation an amendment to a general
    appropriation bill that makes funding contingent on whether
    circumstances not made determinative by existing law are ``known'' (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

      Paragraph (d) provided a new procedure for consideration of
    retrenchment and other limitation amendments only when the 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 the preferential
    motion to rise and report to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec.
    215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). In the 105th Congress it was
    further amended to make the motion preferential to any motion to amend
    at that stage (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

      Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215, H.
    Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). However, paragraph (e) is no longer
    effective with respect to discretionary spending because under section
    275 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act section 251
    expired on September 30, 2002. A technical correction to paragraph (f)
    was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
    p. _).

    [[Page 841]]

    agency (Jan. 31, 1962, p. 1352); (2) a joint resolution only containing
    continuing appropriations for diverse agencies to provide funds until
    regular appropriation bills are enacted (Sept. 21, 1967, p. 26370); (3)
    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, p. 29627); (4) a joint resolution transferring
    funds already appropriated from one specific agency to another (Mar. 26,
    1980, p. 6716); (5) 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).

    Sec. 1044. Points of order on general
    appropriation bills generally.

      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 clause (VII, 1122). The following
    have been held not to be ``general appropriation bills'' within the
    purview of this clause: (1) a joint resolution providing an
    appropriation for a single Government

      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.
    17117). By unanimous consent the Committee of the Whole may vacate
    proceedings under specified points of order (June 7, 1991, p. 13973). A
    point of order may be withdrawn as a matter of right (in the Committee
    of the Whole as well as in the House) before action thereon (May 19,
    2000, p. 8600).

      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, in response to 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. Before the adoption of clause 1 (formerly
    clause 8) in the 104th Congress (see Sec. 1035, supra), it was necessary
    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 the rule
    could be stricken in the Committee (V, 6921-6925; VIII, 3450; 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, because the initial
    reservation carried over to the subsequent filing (Mar. 1, 1983, p.
    3241). In an instance in which 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 chair of the Committee of the Whole lacked
    authority to pass upon the question (Apr. 8, 1943, p. 3150, 3153).

    [[Page 842]]

    clause 2(d), including a requirement that it come at the end of the
    reading (Speaker Foley, Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159; Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18546;
    June 18, 2009, p. _); 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. 16844).
      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
    containing legislation (Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28883; Aug. 1, 2008, p. _).
    Clause 2(c) provides that a limitation not specifically contained in
    existing law or authorized for the period of the limitation shall not be
    in order during consideration of a general appropriation bill except as
    contemplated by

      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 of
    order is made against a portion of a paragraph does not prevent another
    point of order against the whole paragraph (V, 6882; July 31, 1985, p.
    21895), nor does it prevent another Member from demanding that the
    original point of order be extended to the entire paragraph (e.g., July
    16, 1998, p. 15806; Sept. 4, 2003, pp. 21164, 21167, pp. 21169, 21170;
    Sept. 14, 2004, p. _; June 29, 2005, p. _). If a portion of a proposed
    amendment is out of order, it is sufficient for the rejection of the
    whole amendment (V, 6878-6880). 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 that 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; July 26, 2001, pp. 14716, 14721). Where a point of order is
    sustained against the whole of a paragraph the whole must be stricken,
    but it is otherwise when the point of order is made only against a
    portion (V, 6884, 6885).

    [[Page 843]]

    order against specific portions have been sustained and an amendment to
    the paragraph has been offered (June 27, 1974, pp. 21670-72).
      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, 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 before 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 does not make such an inquiry where the Clerk has actually read the
    paragraph (May 31, 1984, p. 14608). Where a portion of the bill is
    considered as having been read and open to amendment by unanimous
    consent, points of order against provisions in that portion must be made
    before amendments are offered, and may not be reserved (Dec. 1, 1982, p.
    28175; May 19, 2000, p. 8595; July 22, 2003, p. 18984). 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 preceding chapter (June 11, 1985, p. 15181). It is too late to rule
    out the entire paragraph after points of

      The fact that legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
    amendment may rest with the Committee on Appropriations does not
    immunize the amendment from the application of clause 2(c) of rule XXI
    (July 17, 1996, p. 17550; July 24, 1996, p. 18898). The ``works in
    progress'' exception under clause 2(a) of rule XXI is a defense to a
    point of order against an unauthorized appropriation reported in a
    general appropriation bill and is not a defense to a point of order
    under clause 2(c) of rule XXI that an amendment to an appropriation bill
    constitutes legislation (July 24, 1996, p. 18898).

      For a discussion of perfecting amendments to unauthorized
    appropriations or legislation permitted to remain in a general
    appropriation bill by failure to raise or by waiver of a point of order,
    see Sec. 1058, infra.

    Sec. 1044a. Points of order on general appropriation bills,
    deliberation of.

      To  resolve an ambiguity when ruling on a point of order,
    the Chair may: (1) examine legislative history established during debate
    on an amendment against which a point of order has been reserved (June
    14, 1978, p. 17651); (2) inquire after its author's intent (Oct. 29,
    1991, p. 28818); or (3) examine the accompanying report to determine the
    intent of the section (June 25, 2004, p. _).

    [[Page 844]]

    tible to more than one interpretation, that it merits the construction
    that it does not violate the rule (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 22.26),
    although 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. 22206).
      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; June 23, 2000, p.
    12123). Thus, the burden of proving the authorization for appropriations
    carried in a bill, or that the language in the bill constitutes a valid
    limitation that does not change existing law, falls on the proponents
    and managers of the bill (May 28, 1968, p. 15357; Nov. 30, 1982, p.
    28062; June 25, 2004, p. _). By the same token, the proponent of an
    amendment has the burden of proof to show that an appropriation
    contained in an amendment is authorized by law (e.g., May 11, 1971, p.
    14471; Oct. 29, 1991, p. 28791; July 26, 1995, p. 20567; July 27, 1995,
    pp. 20808, 20811; July 31, 1995, p. 21207) or that the amendment
    constitutes a valid limitation (July 17, 1975, p. 23239; June 16, 1976,
    p. 18666; July 18, 1995, p. 19357; June 24, 2003, pp. 15858, 15859). For
    example, the proponent of a provision in the bill or of an amendment, as
    the case may be, has the burden to show the following: (1) that any
    duties imposed by a limitation are merely ministerial or already
    required under existing law (July 16, 1998, p. 15829); (2) in the case
    of language proposing a double-negative, that the object of the double-
    negative is specifically contemplated by existing law (July 23, 2003,
    pp. 19250-51, pp. 19251-53; see Sec. 1053, infra); (3) that the
    amendment does not increase levels of budget authority or outlays within
    the meaning of clause 2(f) (e.g., Oct. 11, 2001, pp. 19368, 19369; see
    also July 13, 2004, p. _, p. _ and May 25, 2006, p. _, where the Chair
    sustained the point of order in part because the manager's averment that
    the amendment increased outlays went unchallenged); (4) if the language
    is suscep

      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, p. 25606).

      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 a 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 as directly or indirectly changing
    the application of existing law are presumably legislation, absent
    rebuttal by the committee (May 31, 1984, p. 14591).

    [[Page 845]]

    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 (June 18, 1991, p. 15214; Sept. 23, 1993, p.
    22214). A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report to the
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken takes
    precedence over the motion to amend under clause 9 of rule XVIII
    (formerly clause 7 of rule XXIII) and also over the motion to rise and
    report under clause 2(d) (July 24, 1986, p. 17641).

    Sec. 1044b. Motion to rise and report.

      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 (under
    the former form of the rule, which made the preferential motion
    available to any Member) might first inquire whether any Member sought
    to offer an amendment (formerly, one not prohibited by clauses 2(a) or
    (c)) before recognizing Members to offer limitation or retrenchment
    amendments (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 any amendment (formerly only 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. 17135). 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 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 (Sept. 19, 1983, p. 24647
    (sustained on appeal)). An amendment not only reducing an amount in a
    paragraph of an appropriation bill but also limiting expenditure of
    those funds on a particular

      The 109th Congress adopted a resolution creating a point of order
    against the motion to rise and report an appropriation bill to the House
    where the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeded an applicable
    allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and setting forth procedures in the
    Committee of the Whole in the event that the point of order was
    sustained (sec. 2, H. Res. 248, Apr. 28, 2005, p. _). The 110th and
    111th Congresses adopted the same procedure (sec. 511(a)(5), H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 2007, p. _ (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan.
    6, 2009, p. _), to wit:

      Sec. 3. (a)(4)(A) During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, except as
    provided in subsection (C), a motion that the Committee of the Whole
    rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in order if the bill,
    as amended, exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority
    under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
    estimated by the Committee on the Budget.

      (B) If a point of order under subsection (A) is sustained, the Chair
    shall put the question: `Shall the Committee of the Whole rise and
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
    adopted notwithstanding that the bill exceeds its allocation of new
    budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
    1974?'. Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
    and controlled by a proponent of the question and an opponent but shall
    be decided without intervening motion.

      (C) Subsection (A) shall not apply--

              (i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or

              (ii) after disposition of a question under subsection (B) on a

            given bill.

      (D) If a question under subsection (B) is decided in the negative, no
    further amendment shall be in order except--

              (i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10

            minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

            opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be

    [[Page 846]]

            subject to a de

            mand for division of the question in the House or in the

            Committee of the Whole; and

              (ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chair or ranking

            minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their

            designees, for the purpose of debate.

    Sec. 1045. Authorization of law for
    appropriations.

      A treaty  may provide the authorization by existing law required
    in the rule to justify appropriations if it has been ratified by 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. 14421). 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 appropriation for an office created by Executive Order
    issued pursuant to the Reorganization Plan (June 21, 1974, p. 20595). A
    constitutional guarantee of just compensation for a governmental taking
    of private property for public use does not itself constitute sufficient
    authorization by law for appropriations in a general appropriation bill
    for compensation of particular private property owners (July 18, 2001,
    pp. 13662-65; cf. VII, 1144).

      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 that 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).

    [[Page 847]]

    priation 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, p. 38854). By a general
    provision of law, appropriations for investigations and the acquisition
    and diffusion of information by the Agriculture 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
    also authorize 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), cooperation with
    State investigations (IV, 3650; VII, 1301, 1302), the investigation of
    foods in relation to commerce (IV, 3647, 3648; VII, 1298), or the
    compiling of tests at an exposition (IV, 3653).
      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). A
    permanent law authorizing the President to appoint certain staff,
    together with legislative provisions authorizing additional employment
    contained in an appro

      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. 14418). 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. 22175; June
    26, 2001, p. 11936; Nov. 28, 2001, pp. 23239, 23240) or from the Airport
    and Airway Trust Fund (e.g., Sept. 14, 2004, p. _; June 29, 2005, p. _).
    A paragraph providing funds for the President to meet ``unanticipated
    needs'' was held unauthorized (July 16, 1998, p. 15808). 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). Similarly, an amendment limiting funds to the
    extent provided in authorizing legislation on or after the date of
    enactment of the pending appropriation bill is not in order (May 19,
    2005, p. _).

    [[Page 848]]

    appropriation remain available until expended does not constitute
    legislation (July 15, 1993, p. 15848).
      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 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). However, 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 or annual authorizations (June
    14, 1978, pp. 17616, 17622, 17626, 17630) or on whether a periodic
    authorization scheme has subsequently occupied the field (Sept. 9, 1997,
    p. 18197). 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. 1442).
    Where existing law authorizes certain appropriations from a particular
    trust fund without fiscal year limitation, language that such an

      An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that ``not less
    than'' (or ``not to exceed'') a certain amount be made available to a
    program requires an authorization (June 21, 1988, p. 15440; July 12,
    2000, p. 14070; July 13, 2000, p. 14084; July 25, 2007, p. _).

      Pursuant to clause 11(i) of rule X (formerly 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. 1046. 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). However, 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).

      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). 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 not in order to provide
    for an unauthorized office and salary in lieu of it (IV, 3680).

    [[Page 849]]

    lump sum appropriation to projects as authorized by law (Deschler, ch.
    26, Sec. 19.6), but where language in the bill limits use of the lump
    sum both to projects ``authorized by law'' 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). Language in an appropriation
    bill precluding funds for projects not authorized by law or beyond the
    amount authorized was held to limit expenditures to authorized projects
    and was not legislation (Deschler, ch. 25, Sec. 2.18).

    Sec. 1047. 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. 22175). However, 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 was construed not 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

    [[Page 850]]

    Concerning reappropriation for continuation of public works in progress,
    see Sec. 1031, supra.

    Sec. 1048. Continuation of a public work by
    appropriations.

      The provision  excepting public works and objects that are already in
    progress from the requirement that appropriations be authorized by
    existing law (IV, 3578) has historically been applied only in cases of
    general revenue funding (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p.
    22173). 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, p. 22173;
    Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 8.9). The ``works in progress'' exception may not
    be invoked to fund a project governed by a lapsed authorization and may
    not be invoked to fund a project that is not yet under construction
    (July 31, 1995, p. 21207). Where existing law (40 U.S.C. 3307)
    specifically prohibits the making of an appropriation to construct or
    alter any public building involving more than a certain amount of money
    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, because
    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, p. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173). 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 (IV, 3704). It has been
    held that a work has not 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). ``Public works and objects already in
    progress'' include tangible matters like buildings, roads, etc., but 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, or an extension of an existing
    road (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140), may not be admitted as a work in
    progress (VII, 1333).

    Sec. 1049. 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. 22140; Sept.
    23, 1993, p. 22173), extension of an existing road (Sept. 22, 1993, p.
    22140), 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). However,
    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).
    It is not 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) as
    have additions to existing buildings in cases in which no limits of cost
    have been shown (IV, 3774, 3775). However, 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).

    [[Page 851]]

    children in the District of Columbia (IV, 3792) have also been held not
    to be in continuation of a public work.

    Sec. 1050. 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

    Sec. 1051. 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; Jan. 22, 1926, p.
    2621). Although 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 (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 drydocks (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).

    Sec. 1052. Legislation generally.

      A  provision changing
    existing law is construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists
    (IV, 3812, 3813). For example, the following provisions have been held
    out of order: (1) permitting funds to remain available until expended or
    beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill where existing law does not
    permit such availability (Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27288; June 9, 2006, p. _);
    (2) permitting funds to be available immediately upon enactment before
    the fiscal year covered by the bill (July 29, 1986, p. 17981; June 28,
    1988, p. 16255); (3) permitting funds to be available to the extent
    provided in advance in appropriation Acts but not explicitly beyond the
    fiscal year in question (July 21, 1981, p. 16687); or (4) setting a
    floor on spending that is not established by existing law (July 23,
    2003, pp. 19228, 19229).

      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, 1993, p. 11319), as
    does a provision proposing a rescission of budget authority provided in
    law other than appropriations acts, such as contract authority (e.g.,
    Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22138; May 15, 1997, p. 8510; July 23, 1997, p.
    15353; July 29, 1998, p. 17956) or a loan guarantee program (July 13,
    2004, p. _). Similarly, a provision canceling funds under the Farm
    Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was held to be legislation
    (June 16, 2004, p. _). A provision constituting congressional
    disapproval of a deferral of budget authority proposed by the President
    pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 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).

    [[Page 852]]

    1996, p. 17550; July 24, 1996, p. 18898). A proposal to designate an
    appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within the meaning of the
    budget-enforcement laws (or so designated under provisions of a budget
    resolution) is fundamentally legislative in character (e.g., Sept. 8,
    1999, pp. 20900; June 19, 2000, pp. 11294-97 (sustained on appeal); June
    20, 2001, p. 11224; Oct. 16, 2003, pp. 24962, 24963; Mar. 15, 2005, p. _
    (sustained on appeal)). Similarly, a provision 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 if the law making those expenditures
    specifies that the timing is the result of a ``significant'' policy
    change (July 20, 1989, p. 15374).
      A proposal to amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation
    of appropriations in the absence of timely enactment of a regular
    appropriation bill constitutes legislation in contravention of clause
    2(c) (July 17,

      Language in an appropriation bill precluding funds for projects not
    authorized by law or beyond the amount authorized has been held in order
    as simply limiting expenditures to authorized projects (Deschler, ch.
    25, Sec. 2.18). However, an amendment limiting funds to the extent
    provided for in authorizing legislation on or after the date of
    enactment of the pending appropriation bill is not in order (May 19,
    2005, p. _).

      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. 28814). For example, an amendment
    proposing to make certain funds available for a specified report not
    contemplated by existing law was held to constitute legislation in
    violation of clause 2(c) (June 13, 2000, p. 10509). The fact that a
    legislative item has been carried in appropriation bills for many years
    does not exempt it from a point of order (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). Limits of cost for public works may not be
    made or changed (IV, 3761, 3865-3867; VII, 1446), nor contracts
    authorized (IV, 3868-3870; May 14, 1937, p. 4595).

      An amendment to a general appropriation bill stating a legislative
    position constitutes legislation (July 24, 2001, pp. 14349, 14351) as
    does one establishing a select committee (Mar. 16, 2006, p. _) or a
    trust fund in the Treasury (June 9, 2006, p. _).

    [[Page 853]]

    Sec. 1053. Limitations on appropriations
    generally.

      Although the  rule forbids a provision ``changing existing law,'' the
    House, by practice, 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). Paragraph
    (c) prohibits consideration of limitation amendments during the reading
    of the bill by paragraph unless specifically authorized by existing law
    for the period of the limitation, even if the amendment is expanding a
    limitation already in the bill (July 23, 2003, p. 19238).

      A limitation may provide that some or all of the appropriation under
    consideration may not be used for a certain designated purpose (IV,
    3917-3926; VII, 1580). This designated purpose may reach the question of
    qualifications, for although it is not in order to legislate as to the
    qualifications of the recipients of an appropriation (Deschler, ch. 26,
    Sec. Sec. 53, 57.15), the House may specify that no part of the
    appropriation may go to recipients lacking certain qualifications (IV,
    3942-3952; VII, 1655; June 4, 1970, p. 18412; June 27, 1974, p. 21662;
    Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34712; June 9, 1978, p. 16990).

      A limitation amendment prohibiting the use of funds 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).

      A limitation may place some minimal, incidential duties on Federal
    officials, who must determine the effect of such a limitation on
    appropriated funds. However, a provision may not impose additional
    duties not required by law, either explicitly or implicitly, or make the
    appropriation contingent upon the performance of such duties (VII, 1676;
    June 11, 1968, p. 16712; July 31, 1969, pp. 21631-33; May 28, 1968, p.
    15350; July 26, 1985, p. 20807; see Sec. 1054, infra). The fact that a
    limitation 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 otherwise amend existing law and is
    descriptive of functions and findings already required to be undertaken
    by existing law. For example, a limitation precluding funds for
    specified Federal departments to file certain motions in specified civil
    actions (all matters of public record in the litigation and therefore
    available to responsible intervening Federal officials) was held to be a
    proper limitation (July 18, 2001, pp. 13683, 13684).

    [[Page 854]]

      The limitation must apply solely to the money of the appropriation
    under consideration (VII, 1597, 1600, 1720; Feb. 26, 1958, p. 2895). For
    example, a limitation on funds: (1) may not apply to money appropriated
    in other Acts (IV, 3927, 3928; VII, 1495, 1525; June 28, 1971, p. 22442;
    June 27, 1974, pp. 21670-72; May 13, 1981, p. 9663); (2) may not require
    funds available to an agency in any future fiscal year for a certain
    purpose to be subject to limitations specified in advance in
    appropriations Acts (May 8, 1986, p. 10156). The tendency of a
    limitation to change existing law is measured against the state of
    existing law ``for the period of the limitation,'' such that the
    presence of the same limitation in the annual bill for the previous
    fiscal year does not justify its inclusion in the pending annual bill
    (Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406, June 26, 2000, p. 12355).

      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. 22204; July 15, 2004, p. _). For example, a limitation on the
    authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to purchase sugar is
    legislative in nature and not a limitation on funds (June 29, 2000, p.
    13109).

      In construing a proposed limitation, the Chair may examine whether the
    purpose of the limitation is legislative. For example, a limitation
    accompanied by language stating a legislative motive or purpose is not
    in order (Aug. 8, 1978, p. 24969; July 22, 1980, p. 19087; Sept. 16,
    1980, p. 25604; Sept. 22, 1981, p. 21577). Similarly, where existing law
    and the Constitution require a census to be taken of all persons, an
    amendment that seeks to preclude the use of funds to exclude another
    class ``known'' to the Secretary is not in order (Aug. 1, 1989, p.
    17156). However, language may, by negatively refusing to include funds
    for all or part of an authorized executive function, thereby affect
    policy and restrict executive discretion to the extent of its denial of
    availability of funds (IV, 3968-3972; VII, 1583, 1653, 1694; Sept. 14,
    1972, p. 30749; June 21, 1974, p. 20601; Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34716). For
    example, an appropriation may be withheld from a designated object by a
    negative limitation on the use of funds, notwithstanding that contracts
    may be left unsatisfied thereby (IV, 3987; July 10, 1975, pp. 22006-07).

      The Chair has stated that a limitation amendment that comprises a
    textual ``double-negative'' (the coupling of a denial of an
    appropriation with a negative restriction on official duties) is suspect
    and may result in an affirmative direction or an affirmative statement
    of intent that constitutes legislation and is therefore not in order
    (VII, 1690-1692; Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 51.15 (note); July 23, 2003, pp.
    19250-53). In order to carry the burden of proof on an amendment
    proposing a double-negative, a Member must be able to show that the
    object of the double-negative is specifically contemplated by existing
    law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19250-51, pp. 19251-53). For example, the
    following have been held out of order for using a double-negative: (1) a
    provision to limit funds to prohibit the obligation of funds up to a
    specified amount for an unauthorized transportation project (effectively
    authorizing an unauthorized project) (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22209); (2) an
    amendment to limit funds to prohibit projects that promote the
    participation of women in international peace efforts, such promotion
    not specifically contemplated by law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19250-51); (3)
    an amendment to limit funds to prohibit the establishment of an
    independent commission not contemplated by existing law (July 23, 2003,
    pp. 19251-53).

    [[Page 855]]

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

      As long as a limitation merely 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 that would have to be accounted for separately in
    carrying out the limitation (Aug. 20, 1980, p. 22171).

      The fact that existing law authorizes funds to be available until
    expended or without regard to fiscal year limitation does not prevent
    the Committee 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
    Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 32). 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).

      A proposition to construe a law may not be admitted (IV, 3936-3938,
    see Sec. 1055, infra). Care also should 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). An amendment
    placing a limitation on funds for activities unrelated to the functions
    of departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane under
    clause 7 of rule XVI (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

    Sec. 1054. New duties or determinations;
    executive discretion.

      Propositions to  establish affirmative directions for executive
    officers (IV, 3854-3859; VII, 1443; July 31, 1969, p. 21675; June 18,
    1979, p. 15286; July 1, 1987, pp. 18654, 18655; June 27, 1994, p.
    14572), even in cases in which they may have discretion under the law so
    to do (IV, 3853; June 4, 1970, p. 18401; Aug. 8, 1978, p. 24959), or to
    affirmatively take away an authority or discretion conferred by law (IV,
    3862, 3863; VII, 1975; Mar. 30, 1955, p. 4065; June 21, 1974, p. 20600;
    July 31, 1985, p. 21909), are subject to a point of order.

    [[Page 856]]

    require the evaluation of the theoretical basis of a program (July 22,
    1981, p. 16822); (7) 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); (8) incorporate by
    reference determinations already made in administrative processes not
    affecting programs funded by the bill (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361); (9)
    require new determinations of rates of interest payable (July 29, 1982,
    p. 18624; Dec. 9, 1982, p. 29691); (10) require a determination of
    whether the Office of Management and Budget interfered with the
    rulemaking authority of a regulatory agency (Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062);
    (11) authorize the President to reduce each appropriation in the bill by
    not more than 10 percent (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June 6, 1984, p.
    15120); (12) apply standards of conduct to foreign entities where
    existing law requires such conduct only by domestic entities (July 17,
    1986, p. 16951); (13) require the enforcement of a standard where
    existing law only requires inspection of an area (July 30, 1986, p.
    18189); (14) prohibit the availability of funds for the purchase of
    ``nondomestic'' goods and services (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178); (15)
    mandate contractual provisions (May 18, 1988, p. 11389); (16) 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. 31708);
    (17) 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. 18825); (18) mandate
    reductions in various appropriations by a variable percentage calculated
    in relation to ``overhead'' (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992,
    p. 16110); (19) require an agency to investigate and determine whether
    private airports are collecting certain fees for each enplaning
    passenger (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22213); (20) require an agency to
    investigate and determine whether a person or entity entering into a
    contract with funds under the pending bill is subject to a legal
    proceeding commenced by the Federal Government and alleging fraud (Sept.
    17, 1997, p. 19045); (21) require an agency to determine whether
    building services are ``usually'' provided through the Federal Building
    Fund to an agency not paying a level of assessment specified elsewhere
    (and not necessarily applicable) (July 16, 1998, p. 15816); (22) require
    a determination of ``successor agency'' status (Sept. 26, 1997, p.
    20347); (23) require a determination whether a delegate or envoy to the
    United Nations has ``advocated'' the adoption of a certain convention
    (June 26, 2000, p. 12355); (24) require tests or reports not required
    under existing law (May 19, 2000, p. 8616) or require all quarterly and
    annual reports required by law in accordance with standards for reports
    under a specified law not otherwise applicable (Sept. 9, 2003, pp.
    21548, 21549); (25) impose a new duty to tally violations of law by
    contractors where existing law required information on violations but
    not on the number thereof (June 7, 2000, p. 9849); (26) require an
    investigation of the conscription requirements of other nations (July
    13, 2000, p. 14121); (27) require a determination whether ``efforts''
    have been made to change any nation's

    [[Page 857]]

    laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control (July
    13, 2000, p. 14130); (28) impose a new duty to calculate the ``total
    amount'' of payments under a Federal program paid to a husband and wife
    (to determine whether an exception to an otherwise valid limitation
    would apply) (July 11, 2001, pp. 13001-03); (29) require an
    investigation into the extent to which World Trade Organization
    challenges against foreign laws and policies promote access to certain
    pharmaceuticals (July 18, 2001, pp. 13693, 13694); (30) require an
    investigation into whether an applicant for immigration has been
    involved in the harvesting of organs (July 18, 2001, pp. 13702-05); (31)
    require the Inspector General to opine on audited financial statements
    of certain components of the Department of Defense where the issuance of
    such opinion was not shown to be required by existing law (June 27,
    2002, pp. 11788, 11789); (32) require the examination of certain
    legislative reports to determine whether an entity is specifically
    identified by name (July 17, 2002, pp. 13365, 13366); (33) require
    several agencies to process certain information where current law
    required only one specific agency to process that information (June 24,
    2003, p. _); (34) in the case of a limitation with respect to certain
    roads on public land, require a determination of the precise nature of
    those roads including their ownership and the types of vehicles allowed
    to travel on them (July 17, 2003, pp. 18628-31); (35) require a
    determination that certain trade agreements achieved generic undefined
    policy goals that were not set forth in existing law (July 23, 2003, pp.
    19156-58); (36) require a determination that a drug has been prescribed
    ``for the purpose of relieving or managing pain'' (July 7, 2004, p. _);
    (37) require a determination as to the date on which various road
    construction projects in a National Forest were commenced within the
    periods in which they were authorized to commence (May 19, 2005, p. _);
    (38) require the Food and Drug Administration to examine a registry of
    clinical trials maintained by the National Institutes of Health, a
    different entity (June 8, 2005, p. _) or require the administrator of
    the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to determine whether a
    federal prohibition on certain mineral exploration (administered by a
    different federal entity) remained in effect (Mar. 15, 2006, p. _); (39)
    require a determination regarding a specific type of employment behavior
    before initiating an employment investigation (June 8, 2005, p. _); (40)
    require a determination as to whether a local educational agency had
    obtained parental consent before providing military recruiters student
    information (June 24, 2004, p. _); (41) in the case of a limitation on
    the enforcement of a regulation against a specified class, require a
    determination as to whether a person is a member of that class (June 30,
    2005, p. _); (42) prescribe a policy for an agency in the distribution
    of grants (June 6, 2006, p. _); (43) require determinations of
    citizenship based on birth (June 6, 2006, p. _). The fact that an
    executive official may have been directed by an Executive Order to
    consult another executive official before taking an action does not
    permit inclusion of language directing

    [[Page 858]]

    the official being consulted to make determinations not specifically
    required by law (July 22, 1980, p. 19087).
      A limitation may not: (1) be applied directly to the official
    functions of executive officers (IV, 3957-3966; VII, 1673, 1678, 1685);
    (2) 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); (3) require a judgment as to
    whether racial imbalance had been overcome (July 31, 1969, pp. 21653,
    21675); (4) 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); (5) require new determinations of full Federal compliance with
    mandates imposed upon States (July 22, 1981, p. 16829); (6)

    [[Page 859]]

    tain motions in specified civil actions (all matters of public record in
    the litigation and therefore available to responsible intervening
    Federal officials) (July 18, 2001, pp. 13683, 13684); (14) denying the
    use of funds in contravention of a cited statute (May 17, 2005, p. _;
    June 6, 2006, p. _).
      On the other hand, the following limitations have been held in order
    as not placing new duties on Federal officials: (1) denying the use of
    funds to pay the salaries of Federal officials who perform certain
    functions under existing law if the description of those duties
    precisely follows existing law and does not require them to perform new
    duties (June 24, 1976, p. 20373); (2) denying the use of funds to a
    Federal official not in compliance with an existing law that such
    official is charged with enforcing (Sept. 10, 1981, p. 20110); (3)
    reducing the availability of funds for trade adjustment assistance by
    amounts of unemployment insurance entitlements 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, p. 15355); (4) denying the
    use of funds to carry out (or pay the salaries of persons who carry out)
    tobacco crop and insurance programs (July 20, 1995, p. 19798); (5)
    denying the use of funds for any transit project exceeding a specified
    cost-effectiveness index where the Chair was persuaded that the
    limitation applied to projects for which indexes were already required
    by law (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22206); (6) denying 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 where the Chair was persuaded
    that existing regulations already required the FAA to determine the
    origin of withdrawn slots (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22212); (7) denying the
    use of funds for troops ``except in time of war'' (Deschler, ch. 26,
    Sec. 70.1) or ``except in time of emergency'' (VII, 1657, which was the
    basis for the preceding ruling); (8) denying the use of funds to
    implement any sanction imposed by the United States on private
    commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical
    supplies to Cuba except for a sanction imposed pursuant to agreement
    with one or more other countries (July 20, 2000, p. 15751); (9) denying
    the use of funds by the Forest Service to construct roads or prepare
    timber sales in certain roadless areas where the executive was already
    charged by law with ongoing responsibility to maintain a comprehensive
    and detailed inventory of all land and renewable resources of the
    National Forest System (July 18, 1995, p. 19357) or for the plan,
    design, study, or construction of roads in a specified forest for the
    purpose of private timber harvest (June 26, 2007, p. _) unless also
    requiring a determination of the date a given road project commenced
    (May 19, 2005, p. _); (10) denying the use of funds to eliminate an
    existing legal requirement for sureties on custom bonds (June 27, 1984,
    p. 19101); (11) denying the use of funds by any Federal official in any
    manner that would prevent a provision of existing law (relating to
    import restrictions) from being enforced (June 27, 1984, p. 19101); (12)
    denying the use of funds for any reduction in the number of Customs
    Service regions or for any consolidation of Customs Service offices
    (June 27, 1984, p. 19102); (13) denying the use of funds for specified
    Federal departments to file cer

      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 (or where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest) is
    legislation, because requiring Federal officials to make new
    determinations and judgments not required of them by law, regardless of
    whether private or State officials administering the funds in question
    commonly make such determinations (June 17, 1977, p. 1969; June 30,
    1993, p. 14871; July 16, 1998, p. 15828). 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). However, to such a
    provision permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill, an
    amendment ``merely perfecting'' the exemption to address cases in which
    the health of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried
    to term was held not to constitute further legislation by requiring a
    different or more onerous determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113). An
    amendment providing that no Federal funds provided in the District of
    Columbia general appropriation bill be used to perform abortions is not
    legislation, because 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 860]]

    projects for which indexes were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993,
    p. 22206).
      An exception to a limitation on funds for the Office of Personnel
    Management to enter contracts for health benefit plans that required
    determinations of ``equivalence'' of benefits was held to impose new
    duties (July 16, 1998, p. 15829). However, an exception to a similar
    limitation that merely excepted certain specified coverage and plans was
    held not to impose new duties (July 16, 1998, p. 15841). Similarly, a
    limitation denying the use of funds in an appropriation bill for the
    General Services Administration to dispose of Federally owned
    ``agricultural'' land declared surplus was held to impose new duties
    because the determination whether surplus lands are ``agricultural'' was
    not required by law (Aug. 20, 1980, pp. 22156-58). However, a limitation
    denying the use of 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

      Over a period dating from 1908, the House had developed a line of
    precedent to the effect that language restricting the availability of
    funds in a general appropriation bill could be a valid limitation if,
    rather than imposing new duties on a disbursing official or requiring
    new determinations of that official, it passively addressed the state of
    knowledge of the official (VII, 1695; cf. Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17156, and
    June 22, 1995, p. 16844 (limitations in recommittal ruled out on basis
    of form rather than of legislative content)). This reasoning culminated
    in a ruling in the 104th Congress admitting as a valid limitation an
    amendment prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to execute certain
    accounting transactions when specified conditions were ``made known'' to
    the disbursing official (July 17, 1996, p. 17542). In the 105th Congress
    this entire line of precedent was overtaken by changes in paragraphs (b)
    and (c) of this clause that treat as legislation a provision that makes
    funding contingent on whether circumstances not determinative under
    existing law are ``known'' (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121; July 15,
    1997, p. 14493; July 24, 1997, p. 15758).

    Sec. 1055. Contingencies and congressional
    actions.

      An amendment  making an appropriation contingent upon a recommendation
    (June 27, 1979, p. 17054) or action not specifically required by law is
    legislation; such as a provision limiting the use of funds in a bill
    ``unless'' or ``until'' an action contrary to existing law is taken
    (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 47.1; July 24, 1996, p. 18888). Where existing
    law requires an agency to furnish certain information to congressional
    committees upon request, without a subpoena, it is not in order to make
    funding for that agency contingent upon its furnishing information to
    subcommittees upon request (July 30, 1980, p. 20475), 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 to condition funds on legal determinations to be made by a
    Federal court and an executive department (June 28, 1988, p. 16261; see
    Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 47.2).

      Provisions making the availability of funds contingent upon subsequent
    congressional action have, under the most recent precedents, been ruled
    out as legislation (June 30, 1942, p. 5826; May 15, 1947, p. 5378; June
    27, 1994, p. 14613). However, a limitation on the use of funds to buy
    real estate or establish new offices except where Congress had approved
    and funded such activity (June 18, 1991, p. 15218) was held in order.

    [[Page 861]]

    ability until all general appropriation bills are presented to the
    President (June 29, 1987, p. 18083). A section in a general
    appropriation bill directly contravening existing law to subject the use
    of local funds to congressional approval was held to constitute
    legislation where it was shown that some local (District of Columbia)
    funds deriving from interest accounts were available to the Financial
    Control Board without subsequent congressional approval (Aug. 6, 1998,
    p. 19079).
      The following provisions have been ruled out as legislation: (1)
    making the availability of certain funds contingent upon subsequent
    congressional action on legislative proposals resolving the policy issue
    (Nov. 18, 1981, p. 28064); (2) making the availability of funds
    contingent upon subsequent enactment of legislation containing specified
    findings (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30503); (3) making the availability of
    funding in the bill contingent on the funding of a separate provision of
    law (Mar. 15, 2006, p. _); and (4) changing a permanent appropriation in
    existing law to restrict its avail

      Two rulings upholding the admissibility of amendments making the
    availability of funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action
    have been superseded by the precedents cited above (June 11, 1968, p.
    16692; Sept. 6, 1979, p. 23360).

      The following provisions also have been held to be legislation as they
    required: (1) a congressional committee to promulgate regulations to
    limit the use of an appropriation (June 13, 1979, p. 14670), or
    otherwise to direct the activities of a committee (June 24, 1992, p.
    16087); (2) a substantive determination by a State or local government
    official or agency that is not otherwise required by existing law (July
    25, 1985, p. 20569); (3) the Selective Service Administration to issue
    regulations to bring its classifications into conformance with a Supreme
    Court decision (July 20, 1989, p. 15405); (4) a change in a rule of the
    House (IV, 3819); (5) an agency to submit all quarterly and annual
    reports required by law in accordance with standards for reports under a
    specified law not otherwise applicable (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21548); (6)
    compliance with a law not otherwise applicable (Sept. 4, 2003, p.
    21213).

    Sec. 1056. Construing or amending existing
    law.

      A provision  proposing to construe existing law is itself legislative and
    therefore not in order (IV, 3936-3938; May 2, 1951, p. 4747; July 26,
    1951, p. 8982). However, an official's general responsibility to
    construe the language of a limitation on the use of funds, absent
    imposition of an affirmative direction not required by law, does not
    destroy the validity of a limitation (June 27, 1974, pp. 21687-94).

      Where it is asserted that duties ostensibly occasioned by a limitation
    are already imposed by existing law, the Chair may take cognizance of
    judicial decisions and rule the limitation out on the basis that the
    case law is not uniform, current, or finally dispositive (June 16, 1977,
    pp. 19365-74; June 7, 1978, p. 16676). For example, a limitation
    prohibiting the use of funds for an inspection conducted by a regulatory
    agency without a search warrant has been held out of order as imposing a
    new duty not uniformly required by case law (June 16, 1977, pp. 19365-
    74). Similarly, an amendment denying the use of funds for an agency to
    apply certain provisions of law under court decisions in effect on a
    prior date has been held out of order as requiring the official to apply
    noncurrent case law (June 7, 1978, p. 16655).

    [[Page 862]]

    legislation (June 21, 2000, p. 11773). Similarly, a provision construing
    a limitation in a bill by affirmatively declaring the meaning of the
    prohibition is legislation (May 17, 1988, p. 11305); and a provision
    prescribing definitions for terms contained in a limitation may be
    legislation (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. Sec. 25.7, 25.11). Language
    excepting certain appropriations from the sweep of a broader limitation
    may be in order (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 25.2). It also has been held in
    order to except from the operation of a specific limitation on
    expenditures certain of those expenditures that are authorized by law by
    prohibiting a construction of the limitation in a way that would prevent
    compliance with that law (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 25.10; June 18, 1991,
    p. 15218). Similarly, a limitation on certain payments to persons in
    ``excess of $500,'' but stating that the limitation would not be
    ``construed to deprive any share renter of payments'' to which the
    renter might otherwise be entitled was held in order (Deschler, ch. 26,
    Sec. 66.1).
      A provision prescribing a rule of construction is legislation
    (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 25.15). For example, a provision prescribing a
    prospective rule of construction for possible (future) tax enactments
    was held to constitute

      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, p. 25606; May 8, 1986, p.
    10156). A limitation denying the use of funds to apply certain
    provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than under regulations in
    effect on a prior date is legislation as it would require an official to
    apply regulations no longer current in order to render an appropriation
    available (June 7, 1978, p. 16655; Aug. 19, 1980, pp. 21978-80).
    However, an exception to a limitation on the use of funds for designated
    Federal activities that were already authorized by law in more general
    terms, was held in order as not containing legislation (June 27, 1979,
    pp. 17033-35).

      Language waiving provisions of an existing law that did not
    specifically permit inclusion of such a waiver in an appropriation bill
    has been ruled out (e.g., Nov. 13, 1975, p. 36271; June 20, 1996, p.
    14847; May 19, 2000, p. 8600), 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; Mar. 16, 2006, p. _ (sustained on
    appeal)).

      Existing law may be repeated verbatim without violating the rule (IV,
    3814, 3815), but the slightest change of the text renders it liable to a
    point of order (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, p. 19843; Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24249); although language
    merely reciting the applicability of current law to the use of earmarked
    funds is permitted, a provision that elevates existing guidelines to
    mandates for spending has been ruled out (July 12, 1989, p. 14432).

    [[Page 863]]

    in the amendment (Mar. 16, 1977, p. 7748); (2) a regulation, which was
    promulgated pursuant to court order and constitutional provisions--the
    authority for the regulation being an argument on the merits of the
    amendment and not rendering it legislative in nature (Aug. 19, 1980, pp.
    21981-84); (3) a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service that taxpayers
    are not entitled to certain charitable deductions because 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); (4) changes
    to a set of overtime compensation regulations in existence on a given
    date (with a certain nonlegislative exception) because they did not
    require the Department to administer superseded regulations (Sept. 4,
    2004, p. _).
      It is in order by way of limitation to deny the use of funds for
    implementation of the following: (1) an Executive Order, which was
    precisely described

      An amendment proposing to increase budget authority and to offset that
    increase by proposing a change in the application of the Internal
    Revenue Code of 1986 was held to constitute legislation (see, e.g.,
    Sept. 8, 1999, pp. 20896-98; June 24, 2003, p. 15831 (sustained on
    appeal); July 10, 2003, p. 17535, p. 17576).

    [[Page 864]]

    1993, p. 14418). Where existing law prescribes a formula for the
    allocation of funds among several categories, an amendment merely
    reducing the amount earmarked for one of the categories is not
    legislation, so long as it does not textually change the statutory
    formula (July 24, 1995, p. 20133).

    Sec. 1057. Mandating expenditures.

      A provision  that 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; July 24, 1995, p. 20141), as is
    an amendment that by such a mandate interferes with an executive
    official's discretionary authority (Mar. 12, 1975, p. 6338), or requires
    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) (including by stating that not less than a
    certain sum ``should be allocated'' (June 9, 2006, p. _)), or earmarks
    appropriated funds to the arts and requires 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 was legislation,
    because 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 that 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 2(a)(2) 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,

    Sec. 1058. 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). Where an
    unauthorized appropriation or legislation is permitted to remain in a
    general appropriation bill by waiver or by failure to raise a point of
    order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding
    legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another
    unauthorized purpose is in order (IV, 3823-3835, 3838; VII, 1405, 1413-
    1415; June 9, 1954, p. 5963; July 27, 1954, p. 12287; Oct. 1, 1975, p.
    31058; June 8, 1977, p. 17941; July 17, 1985, p. 19435; Sept. 11, 1985,
    p. 23398; June 14, 1988, p. 14341). However, this does not permit an
    amendment that adds additional legislation (IV, 3836, 3837, 3862; VII,
    1402-1436; Dec. 9, 1971, p. 4595; Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27291; June 10, 1977,
    p. 1802; July 30, 1985, p. 21532; July 23, 1986, p. 17446; June 26,
    1987, p. 17655; June 28, 1988, pp. 16203, 16213; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18172;
    Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29004; June 23, 1998, p. 13475; July 13, 2000, p.
    14093; June 26, 2007, p. _), proposes a new unauthorized purpose (Dec.
    8, 1971, p. 45487; Aug. 7, 1978, pp. 24710-12; May 25, 1988, p. 12256),
    earmarks for unauthorized purposes (July 17, 1985, p. 19435; July 17,
    1986, p. 16918; July 26, 1995, p. 20528; June 5, 1996, p. 13120),
    earmarks by directing a new use of funds not required by law (July 26,
    1985, pp. 20811, 20813), or increases an authorized amount above the
    authorized ceiling (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513).

    [[Page 865]]

      An amendment adding a new paragraph indirectly increasing an
    unauthorized amount contained in a prior paragraph permitted to remain
    is subject to a point of order because the new paragraph is adding a
    further unauthorized amount not merely perfecting (July 12, 1995, p.
    18628; July 16, 1997, p. 14746; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20818; June 27, 2007,
    p. _). However, a new paragraph indirectly reducing an unauthorized
    amount permitted to remain in a prior paragraph passed in the reading is
    not subject to a point of order because it is not adding a further
    unauthorized amount (July 16, 1997, p. 14747). Where by unanimous
    consent an amendment is offered en bloc to a paragraph containing an
    unauthorized amount not yet read for amendment, the amendment increasing
    that unauthorized figure is subject to a point of order because at that
    point it is not being offered to a paragraph that has been read and
    permitted to remain (June 21, 1984, p. 17687). As required by clause
    2(f), the Chair will query for points of order against the provisions of
    an appropriation bill not yet reached in the reading but addressed by an
    amendment offered en bloc under that clause as budget authority and
    outlay neutral (July 22, 1997, p. 15250).

      The Chair examined an entire legislative provision permitted to remain
    when ruling that an amendment to a portion of the provision was merely
    perfecting (July 15, 1999, pp. 16284, 16291). An amendment to a general
    appropriation bill is not subject to a point of order as adding
    legislation for restating, verbatim, a legislative provision already
    contained in the bill and permitted to remain (Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23519).

      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 (June 22, 1983, p.
    16851). The following amendments to legislative provisions permitted to
    remain have been held to propose additional legislation: (1) an
    amendment striking text that resulted in extending the legislative reach
    of the pending bill (July 17, 1996, p. 17533); (2) an amendment
    extending a legislative provision that placed certain restrictions on
    recipients of a defined set of Federal payments and benefits to persons
    benefiting from a certain tax status determined on wholly unrelated
    criteria (Aug. 3, 1995, p. 21967); (3) an amendment adding an additional
    nation to a legislative provision addressing sanctions against one
    nation (July 13, 2000, p. 14092); (4) an amendment to a legislative
    provision extending the availability of certain housing assistance to
    certain recipients (June 13, 2006, p. _).

      On the other hand, to a legislative provision permitted to remain, an
    amendment particularizing a definition in the language was held not to
    constitute additional legislation where it was shown that the definition
    being amended already contemplated inclusion of the covered class (Aug.
    5, 1998, p. 18934). To a legislative provision permitted to remain that
    excepted from a denial of funds for abortions cases in which the life of
    the mother would be endangered if a fetus were carried to term, an
    amendment excepting instead cases in which the health of the mother
    would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term was held not to
    constitute further legislation, because 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).

      To a paragraph permitted to remain despite 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, was held to be perfecting (July 30,
    1990, p. 20442); but striking the date and inserting a new trigger (the
    enactment of other legislation), was held to be additional legislation
    (July 30, 1990, p. 20442).

    [[Page 866]]

    a general appropriation bill is, pursuant to the edict of clause 5 of
    rule XXII, 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, p. 41504; Aug. 1,
    1979, pp. 22007-11; Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, p. 35520; June 30,
    1987, p. 18308).

    Sec. 1059. 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 5 of rule XXII (Sec. 1076,
    infra) prohibits House conferees from agreeing to a Senate amendment
    that proposes legislation on an appropriation bill without specific
    authority from the House. However, where a Senate amendment proposing
    legislation on

                   ``holman rule'' on retrenching expenditures

    Sec. 1062. 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 in which 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 that are considered to be
    legislation (see Sec. Sec. 1053-1057, 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 that does not legislate but is merely a negative limitation citing
    but not changing existing law (June 18, 1980, p. 15355).

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

    [[Page 867]]

    1, 1975, p. 31058). An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying
    the availability of funds to certain recipients but requiring 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 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, ch. 26,
    Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. 16110). An amendment authorizing the
    President to reduce each appropriation in the bill by not more than 10
    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.

      The amendment must not only show on its face an attempt to retrench
    but also must 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, because 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 because not specifically requiring a new determination and because
    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
    Federal Treasury from one-half, as provided in the bill, to one-fourth
    of the entire appropriation is in order, because 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).

    [[Page 868]]

    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).
      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

      To an item of appropriation for inland transportation of mails by star
    routes an amendment was offered requiring the Postmaster General to
    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 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
    that 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. However, 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 869]]

    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.

      As explained in the annotation in Sec. 1043, 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. 13422). 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 that involved

    Sec. 1063. Reappropriations.

      This  provision from section
    139(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190f(c))
    was made part of the standing rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953,
    p. 24). Previously, 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) to permit the Committee on
    Appropriations to report certain transfers of unexpended balances.
    Consistent with clause 2 of rule XXI, and as codified in the 106th
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), violations of this clause are
    enforced only against specific provisions in general appropriation bills
    containing reappropriations rather than against consideration of the
    bill (see Deschler, ch. 25, Sec. 3).

      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 2(a)(2) (formerly clause 6 of rule
    XXI) (Aug. 20, 1951, p. 10393; Mar. 29, 1960, p. 6862; June 17, 1960, p.
    13138; June 20, 1973, p. 20530; 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, p. 27424). An
    amendment to a general appropriation bill making any appropriations that
    are available for the current fiscal year available for certain new
    purposes was held out of order under clause 2(a)(2) because 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. 19652).

      This rule, however, is not applicable when the reappropriation
    language is identical to legislative authorization language enacted
    subsequent to the adoption of the rule, because 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 XIII (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3239).

    [[Page 870]]

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

      A provision in a general appropriation bill that authorizes an
    official to transfer funds among appropriation accounts in the bill
    changes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI by including
    language conferring new authority (Deschler, ch 26, Sec. 29.2; June 9,
    2006, p. _). However, direct transfers of appropriations within the
    confines of the same bill normally are considered in order (VII, 1468)
    as a ``within-bill'' transfer rather than a transfer of unexpended
    balances of the kind addressed by clause 2(a)(2).

    Transportation obligation limitations

    Sec. 1063a. Offsetting en bloc amendments.

      To  invoke the
    protection of clause 2(f), an amendment must not increase the levels of
    budget authority or outlays carried in the bill (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513;
    July 12, 2000, p. 14071; July 13, 2004, pp. _, _); and the proponent of
    an amendment carries the burden of so proving (see Sec. 1044a, supra).
    An amendment otherwise in order under this paragraph may nevertheless be
    in violation of clause 2(a)(1) if increasing an appropriation above the
    authorized amount contained in the bill (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513). The
    Chair will query for points of order against provisions of a bill not
    yet read when they are addressed by an offsetting amendment under this
    paragraph (e.g., May 17, 2005, p. _).

    [[Page 871]]

    States to decide High Priority Project funding priorities within State
    program allocations.

    1064. Transportation obligation limitations.

      3.  It shall
    not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
    conference report that would cause obligation limitations to be below
    the level for any fiscal year set forth in section 8003 of the Safe,
    Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
    Users, as adjusted, for the highway category or the mass transit
    category, as applicable. For purposes of this clause, any obligation
    limitation relating to surface transportation projects under section
    1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and section
    1702 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
    Act: A Legacy for Users shall be assumed to be administered on the basis
    of sound program management practices that are consistent with past
    practices of the administering agency permitting

      The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (sec. 8101(e), P.L.
    105-178; 2 U.S.C. 901 note) added this provision as a new clause 9 of
    rule XXI. In the 106th Congress, this provision was transferred to
    clause 3 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th Congress the
    first sentence of this clause was amended to conform the rule to the
    current law authorizing funds for highway and transit programs, and a
    second sentence was added (sec. 8004, Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
    Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
    P.L. 109-59; 2 U.S.C. 901 note). The second sentence was derived from
    the following provision of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (sec. 108, div. C, P.L. 105-277;
    112 Stat. 2681-586): ``Sec. 108. For the purpose of any Rule of the
    House of Representatives, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
    any obligation limitation relating to surface transportation projects
    under section 1602 of P.L. 105-178 shall be assumed to be administered
    on the basis of sound program management practices that are consistent
    with past practices of the administering agency permitting States to
    decide High Priority Project funding priorities within state program
    allocations.'' Section 8005 of SAFETEA-LU states as follows: ``For
    purposes of clauses 2 and 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives,
    it shall be in order to transfer funds, in amounts specified in annual
    appropriation Acts to carry out the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
    Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (including the
    amendments made by that Act), from the Federal Transit Administration's
    administrative expenses account to other mass transit budget accounts
    under section 250(c)(4)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
    Control Act of 1985.'' An amendment limiting funds for a transportation
    project (1) that was part of an aggregate, annual level of obligation
    limitations set forth in section 8003 of SAFETEA-LU, (2) that was not
    covered by the ``past practice'' assumption, and (3) the funding for
    which could not be redirected elsewhere in the program, was held to
    cause an obligation limitation to be below the funding level required by
    this clause (June 14, 2006, p. _).

    Sec. 48114. Funding for Aviation Programs.

    Sec. 1064a. Funding for aviation programs.

      Section 48114  of
    title 49 (a provision first added by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
    Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (sec. 106, P.L. 106-181),
    and extended to 2007 by its reenactment in title 49 (sec. 104, P.L. 108-
    176)) provides a point of order to enforce guarantees of total budget
    resources in a fiscal year for certain aviation investment programs as
    follows:

      (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--

              (1) Airport and airway trust fund guarantee.--

                      (A) In general.--The total budget resources made

                    available from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund each

    [[Page 872]]

                    fiscal year

                    through fiscal year 2007 pursuant to sections 48101,

                    48102, 48103, and 106(k) of title 49, United States

                    Code, shall be equal to the level of receipts plus

                    interest credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund

                    for that fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for

                    aviation investment programs listed in subsection (b).

                      (B) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated or

                    limited for aviation investment programs listed in

                    subsection (b) unless the amount described in

                    subparagraph (A) has been provided.

              (2) Additional authorizations of appropriations from the

            general fund.--In any fiscal year through fiscal year 2007, if

            the amount described in paragraph (1) is appropriated, there is

            further authorized to be appropriated from the general fund of

            the Treasury such sums as may be necessary for the Federal

            Aviation Administration Operations account.

      (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:

              (1) Total budget resources.--The term ``total budget

            resources'' means the total amount made available from the

            Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the sum of obligation

            limitations and budget authority made available for a fiscal

            year for the following budget accounts that are subject to the

            obligation limitation on contract authority provided in this

            title and for which appropriations are provided pursuant to

            authorizations contained in this title:

                      (A) 69-8106-0-7-402 (Grants in Aid for Airports).

                      (B) 69-8107-0-7-402 (Facilities and Equipment).

                      (C) 69-8108-0-7-402 (Research and Development).

                      (D) 69-8104-0-7-402 (Trust Fund Share of Operations).

              (2) Level of receipts plus interest.--The term ``level of

            receipts plus interest'' means the level of excise taxes and

            interest credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under

            section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal

            year as set forth in the President's budget baseline projection

            as defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

            Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) (Treasury

            identification code 20-8103-0-7-402) for that fiscal year

            submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States

            Code.

      (c) Enforcement of Guarantees.--

              (1) Total airport and airway trust fund funding.--It shall not

            be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to

            consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or

            conference report that would cause total budget resources in a

            fiscal year for aviation investment programs described in

            subsection (b) to be less than the amount required by subsection

            (a)(1)(A) for such fiscal year.

              (2) Capital priority.--It shall not be in order in the House

            of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint

            resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that

    [[Page 873]]

            provides an appropria

            tion (or any amendment thereto) for any fiscal year through

            fiscal year 2007 for Research and Development or Operations if

            the sum of the obligation limitation for Grants-in-Aid for

            Airports and the appropriation for Facilities and Equipment for

            such fiscal year is below the sum of the authorized levels for

            Grants-in-Aid for Airports and for Facilities and Equipment for

            such fiscal year.

    Appropriations on legislative bills
      The chairs of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure inserted in the Record correspondence
    concerning points of order established in this section (Mar. 15, 2000,
    p. 2805).

    1065. Restriction of power to report appropriations.

      4.  A
    bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriation may not be reported
    by a committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, and an
    amendment proposing an appropriation shall not be in order during the
    consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not
    having that jurisdiction. A point of order against an appropriation in
    such a bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
    time during pendency of that measure for amendment.

      This portion of the rule was adopted June 1, 1920 (VII, 2133). When
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47), this clause was returned to clause 4 where it had been
    until moved to former clause 5(a) of rule XXI in the 93d Congress (H.
    Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).

    [[Page 874]]

    ment 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
    because the committees having jurisdiction over 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 that
    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 of an amendment containing an
    appropriation, because the amendment is not separately before the House
    during consideration of the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542).
      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 (except as
    applied through clause 5 of rule XXII) (VII, 1572). However, it may be
    directed against an item of appropriation in a Senate bill (VII, 2136,
    2147; July 30, 1957, pp. 13056, 13181). 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 amend

      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, p. 12043), 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 before its adoption (Apr. 23, 1975, pp. 11512-13). However,
    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, because the only
    rule prohibiting such inclusion (clause 5 of rule XXII) 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, because 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 875]]

      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).

      The point of order provided for in this clause is not applicable to
    the following provisions: (1) 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, because such
    loans do not constitute ``appropriations'' within the purview of the
    rule (June 28, 1949, pp. 8536-38; Aug. 2, 1950, p. 11599); (2) exempting
    loan guarantees in a legislative bill from statutory limitations on
    expenditures (July 16, 1974, p. 23344); (3) authorizing the availability
    of certain loan receipts 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); (4)
    increasing the duties of a commission (VII, 1578); (5) authorizing
    payment from an appropriation to be made (Jan. 31, 1923, p. 2794).

      Language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an
    appropriation 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. 7223), is
    not in order. For example, the following provisions have been held out
    of order: (1) expanding the definition in existing law of recipients
    under a Federal subsidy program as permitting a new use of funds already
    appropriated (May 11, 1976, pp. 13409-11); (2) authorizing the use,
    without a subsequent appropriation, of funds directly appropriated by a
    previous statute for a new purpose (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637-40).
    However, 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).

      The following provisions have also been held to be in violation of
    this clause: (1) directing a departmental officer to pay a certain sum
    out of unexpended balances (VII, 2154); (2) authorizing the use of funds
    of the Shipping Board (VII, 2147); (3) directing payments out of Indian
    trust funds (VII, 2149); (4) making excess foreign currencies
    immediately available for a new purpose (Aug. 3, 1971, p. 29109); (5)
    authorizing the collection of fees or user charges by Federal agencies
    and making the revenues collected therefrom available without further
    appropriation (June 17, 1937, pp. 5915-18; Mar. 29, 1972, pp. 10749-51);
    (6) transferring existing Federal funds into a new Treasury trust fund
    to be immediately available for a new purpose (June 20, 1974, pp. 20273-
    75); (7) transferring unexpended balances of appropriations from an
    existing agency to a new agency created therein (Apr. 9, 1979, p. 7774);
    (8) making a direct appropriation to carry out a part of the Energy
    Security Act (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28812); (9) 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 (Aug. 10, 1988, p. 21719).

    [[Page 876]]

    that 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 available only to the extent provided in
    appropriation acts (see Sec. 1127, supra). See also Deschler, ch. 25,
    Sec. 4 for a discussion of appropriations on legislative bills
    generally.

    Tax and tariff measures and amendments
      Section 401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 317)
    prohibits consideration in the House of any bill, resolution, or
    amendment

    1066. Restriction on bills and amendments carrying
    taxes or tariffs.

      5. (a)(1)  A bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff
    measure may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to
    report tax or tariff measures, and an amendment in the House or proposed
    by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure shall not be in order
    during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a
    committee not having that jurisdiction. A point of order against a tax
    or tariff measure in such a bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto
    may be raised at any time during pendency of that measure for amendment.

      (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a tax or tariff measure includes an
    amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriation
    bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.

      Subparagraph (1) was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    1983, p. 34). Subparagraph (2) was added in the 108th Congress (sec.
    2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Before the House recodified its
    rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
    5(b) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 877]]

    a manner consistent with this paragraph (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 64 (reiterated
    at the beginning of each Congress, e.g., Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 3,
    2001, p. 39)):
      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
    chair 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 the
    following statement of jurisdictional concepts underlying those same
    distinctions and indicated his intention to exercise his referral
    authority under rule X in

              Clause 5(b) (current clause 5(a)) of rule XXI prohibits the

            reporting of a tax or tariff matter by any committee not having

            that jurisdiction. Most of the questions of order arising under

            this clause since its adoption in 1983 have related to

            provisions that clearly affected the operation of the Internal

            Revenue Code or the customs laws. From time to time, however,

            such a question has related to a provision drafted as a user or

            regulatory fee levied on members of a class that occasions or

            avails itself of a particular governmental activity, typically

            to generate revenue in support of that activity. In order to

            provide guidance concerning the referral of bills, to assist

            committees in staying within their appropriate jurisdictions

            under rule X, to assist committees without jurisdiction over tax

            or tariff measures in complying with clause 5(b) of rule XXI,

            and to protect the constitutional prerogative of the House to

            originate revenue bills, the Speaker will make the following

            statement: Standing committees of the House (other than the

            Committees on Appropriations and Budget) have jurisdiction to

            consider user, regulatory and other fees, charges, and

            assessments levied on a class directly availing itself of, or

            directly subject to, a governmental service, program, or

            activity, but not on the general public, as measures to be

            utilized solely to support, subject to annual appropriations,

            the service, program, or activity (including agency functions

            associated therewith) for which such fees, charges, and

            assessments are established and collected and not to finance the

            costs of Government generally. The fee must be paid by a class

            benefiting from the service, program or activity, or being

            regulated by the agency; in short, there must be a reasonable

            connection between the payors and the agency or function

            receiving the fee. The fund that receives the amounts collected

            is not itself determinative of the existence of a fee or a tax.

            The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over ``revenue

            measures generally'' under rule X. That committee is entitled to

            an appropriate referral of broad-based fees and could choose to

            recast such fees as excise taxes. A provision only reauthorizing

            or amending an existing fee without fundamental change, or

            creating a new fee generating only a de minimis  aggregate

            amount of revenues, does not necessarily require a sequential

            referral to the Committee on Ways and Means. The Chair intends

            to coordinate these principles with the Committee on the Budget

            and the Congressional Budget Office, especially in the

            reconciliation process, so that budget scorekeeping does not

            determine, and reconciliation directives and their

            implementation will not be inconsistent with, committee

            jurisdiction. Further, it should be emphasized that the

            constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue

    [[Page 878]]

            measures will continue to be viewed broadly to include

            any meaningful revenue proposal that the Senate may attempt to

            originate.

      The adoption of subparagraph (2) in the 108th Congress established a
    different standard for determining a violation of this clause by an
    amendment to a reported general appropriation bill than for a provision
    in the appropriation bill itself. Before its adoption, a Member raising
    a point of order under this paragraph 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), carried the burden of showing 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, p. 18649; July 13, 1990, p. 17473; June 18, 1991, p. 15189).
    The intent of the rules change, as expressed during debate on the
    change, was ``to ease the burden on the maker of a point of order
    [against an amendment] from having to show a necessary, certain and
    inevitable change in revenue collections, tax statuses, or liability as
    previous precedents required, to one of showing a textual relationship
    between the amendment and the administration of the Internal Revenue or
    tariff laws'' (Jan. 7, 2003, p. 12). Under that standard the following
    amendments to a general appropriation bill have been held to impose a
    limitation on funds in violation of this clause: (1) a limitation on
    funds to assess or collect any tax liability attributable to the
    inclusion of certain economic assistance in the taxpayer's gross income
    (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21531); (2) a limitation on funds to process the
    importation of any product from Iran (June 18, 2004, p. _); (3) a
    limitation on funds for the accession of the Russian Federation into the
    World Trade Organization, thereby effecting changes to that country's
    products under domestic tariff law (June 28, 2006, p. _).

      The precedents developed under this clause before its change in the
    108th Congress still apply to the Chair's determination whether a
    limitation in a general appropriation bill (rather than an amendment
    thereto) constitutes a tax or tariff measure proscribed by this
    paragraph. Prior precedents addressing amendments are still viable for
    that determination. The Chair will consider argument as to whether the
    limitation effectively and inevitably changes revenue collections and
    tax status or liability (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18649). For example, in
    determining whether an amendment to a general appropriation bill
    proposing a change in IRS funding priorities constituted a tax measure
    proscribed by this paragraph, the Chair considered 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. 15189).

    [[Page 879]]

    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 or the Customs Service 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; July 17, 1996, p. 17563); 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. 17473). In the 98th Congress, the Chair sustained
    points of order under this paragraph 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 this paragraph
    because it did not necessarily affect revenue collection levels or tax
    liabilities (June 18, 1991, p. 15189).
      A limitation on the use of funds contained in a general appropriation
    bill was held to violate this paragraph 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

    [[Page 880]]

    ing 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) 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) 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, 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
    remain

    Passage of tax rate increases-
      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. 13103). 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. 32650). 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. 12180). To a bill reported by the Committee on Science,
    Space, and Technology (now Science 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. 25205),
    as were amendments to a general appropriation bill proposing in part to
    temper recently enacted reductions in rates of tax on income (July 10,
    2003, p. 17535, p. 17576).

    [[Page 881]]

    agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths
    of the Members voting, a quorum being present. In this paragraph the
    term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any amendment to
    subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b)
    or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes a new
    percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax
    imposed by any such section.

    1067. Threefifths vote to increase income tax rates.

      (b)  A
    bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a
    Federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or

    [[Page 882]]

    Consideration of retroactive tax rate increases
      This provision was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(a), H. Res.
    6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), and in the 105th Congress it was amended to
    clarify the definition of ``Federal income tax rate increase'' as
    limited to a specific amendment to one of the named subsections (H. Res.
    5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(c) of rule
    XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). 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 the original version of this
    paragraph (Apr. 5, 1995, p. 10614). The modified version of this
    paragraph comprises three elements (an amendment to a pertinent section
    of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the imposition of a new rate of
    tax thereunder, and an increase in the amount of tax thereby imposed)
    and a measure that does not fulfill even the first element does not
    carry a Federal income tax rate increase (Jan. 18, 2007, p. _ (sustained
    by tabling of appeal)). This paragraph does not apply to a concurrent
    resolution (Speaker Gingrich, May 18, 1995, p. 13499). A resolution
    reported from the Committee on Rules rendering this paragraph
    inapplicable may be adopted by majority vote (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477).
    The Speaker rules on the applicability of this paragraph only pending
    the question of final passage of a measure alleged to carry a Federal
    income tax rate increase, and not in advance upon adoption of a special
    order rendering this paragraph inapplicable (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477).

    1068. Prohibition against retroactive income tax rate
    increase.

      (c)  It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
    resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a retroactive
    Federal income tax rate increase. In this paragraph--

          (1) the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any
    amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to
    section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that
    imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases the
    amount of tax imposed by any such section; and

          (2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it
    applies to a period beginning before the enactment of the provision.

    Designation of public works
      This paragraph was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(b), H. Res.
    6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), and it was amended in the 105th Congress to
    clarify the definition of ``Federal income tax rate increase'' (H. Res.
    5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(d) of rule
    XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    1068a. Restriction on designation of public works.

      6.  It
    shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
    or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation
    of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member,
    Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator.

    [[Page 883]]

      This clause was adopted in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).

    Sec. 1068b. Restriction on reconciliation directives.

        7. It
    shall not be in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget,
    or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon that contains
    reconciliation directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget
    Act of 1974 that specify changes in law reducing the surplus or
    increasing the deficit for either period described in clause 10(a). In
    determining whether reconciliation directives specify changes in law
    reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit, the sum of the
    directives for each reconciliation bill (under section 310 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974) envisioned by that measure shall be
    evaluated.

      This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 402, H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 2007, p. _ (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)) and amended in the 111th Congress
    to reflect a change in the time periods in clause 10(a)(1) (sec. 2(j),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _).

    Sec. 1068c. Budget Act points of order.

        8. With respect to
    measures considered pursuant to a special order of business, points of
    order under title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall
    operate without regard to whether the measure concerned has been
    reported from committee. Such points of order shall operate with respect
    to (as the case may be)--

    [[Page 884]]

          (a) the form of a measure recommended by the reporting committee
    where the statute uses the term ``as reported'' (in the case of a
    measure that has been so reported);

          (b) the form of the measure made in order as an original bill or
    joint resolution for the purpose of amendment; or

          (c) the form of the measure on which the previous question is
    ordered directly to passage.

      This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 403, H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 2007, p. _ (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).

      9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--

    Sec. 1068d. Congressional earmarks.

          (1) a  bill or joint
    resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of
    congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff
    benefits in the bill or in the report (and the name of any Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the
    committee for each respective item included in such list) or a statement
    that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
    benefits, or limited tariff benefits;

    [[Page 885]]

          (2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee unless
    the chair of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of
    congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff
    benefits in the bill (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner who submitted a request to the committee for each
    respective item included in such list) or a statement that the
    proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
    limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior
    to its consideration;

          (3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution to be offered at
    the outset of its consideration for amendment by a member of a committee
    of initial referral as designated in a report of the Committee on Rules
    to accompany a resolution prescribing a special order of business unless
    the proponent has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax
    benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amendment (and the name of
    any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request
    to the proponent for each respective item included in such list) or a
    statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks,
    limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the
    Congressional Record prior to its consideration; or

    [[Page 886]]

          (4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint resolution
    unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the
    part of the House and the managers on the part of the Senate includes a
    list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff
    benefits in the conference report or joint statement (and the name of
    any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator who submitted a
    request to the House or Senate committees of jurisdiction for each
    respective item included in such list) or a statement that the
    proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
    limited tariff benefits.

      (b) It shall not be in order to consider a conference report to
    accompany a regular general appropriation bill unless the joint
    explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the part of the House
    and the managers on the part of the Senate includes--

          (1) a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and
    limited tariff benefits in the conference report or joint statement (and
    the name of any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator who
    submitted a request to the House or Senate committees of jurisdiction
    for each respective item included in such list) that were neither
    committed to the conference committee by either House nor in a report of
    a committee of either House on such bill or on a companion measure; or

          (2) a statement that the proposition contains no such
    congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
    benefits.

    [[Page 887]]

      (c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that waives
    the application of paragraph (a) or (b). As disposition of a point of
    order under this paragraph or paragraph (b), the Chair shall put the
    question of consideration with respect to the rule or order or
    conference report, as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
    debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and
    for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without
    intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.

      (d) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of order raised
    under paragraph (a) may be based only on the failure of a report,
    submission to the Congressional Record, or joint explanatory statement
    to include a list required by paragraph (a) or a statement that the
    proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
    limited tariff benefits.

      (e) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``congressional earmark''
    means a provision or report language included primarily at the request
    of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing,
    authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
    authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract,
    loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with
    or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
    Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative
    formula-driven or competitive award process.

      (f) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``limited tax benefit''
    means--

          (1) any revenue-losing provision that--

              (A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or
    preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code
    of 1986, and

              (B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
    application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision;
    or

    [[Page 888]]

    sition relief from a change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
          (2) any Federal tax provision which provides one beneficiary
    temporary or permanent tran

      (g) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``limited tariff
    benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
    the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.

      This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 404, H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 2007, p. _ (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), a similar point of order having
    operated during part of the 109th Congress (H. Res. 1000, Sept. 14,
    2006, p. _). Paragraph (b) was added in the 111th Congress (and
    subsequent paragraphs redesignated) (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
    p. _), a similar point of order having operated during part of the 110th
    Congress (H. Res. 491, June 18, 2007, p. _). A clarifying change to
    paragraph (b)(2) was made during the 111th Congress (sec. 2, H. Res.
    544, June 16, 2009, p. _). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
    the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _).

      A point of order under this clause does not lie against an unreported
    measure where the chair of the committee of initial referral has printed
    in the Record a statement that the measure contains no congressional
    earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits (Jan. 31,
    2007, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)), or against a reported
    measure where the committee report contains such a statement (May 10,
    2007, p. _; May 23, 2007, p. _). Paragraph (d) requires that a point of
    order under this clause be predicated only on the absence of a complying
    statement, and does not contemplate a question of order relating to the
    content of such statement (May 10, 2007, p. _). A point of order under
    this clause is untimely after consideration has begun (Mar. 23, 2007, p.
    _). Because paragraph (a) does not apply to a Senate amendment or an
    amendment considered as adopted pursuant to a special order of business,
    a rule waiving all points of order against a motion to dispose of a
    Senate amendment (Sept. 25, 2007, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal))
    or a rule effecting a ``self-executing'' amendment (Sept. 27, 2007, p.
    _)) has no tendency to waive the applicability of paragraph (a) within
    the meaning of paragraph (c).

    ---
    [[Page 889]]

      Debate on the point of order is on the question of considering the
    measure that is the subject of the point of order (May 14, 2008, _). A
    point of order under both this clause and section 426 of the
    Congressional Budget Act, respectively, may be raised against a special
    order of business (May 14, 2008, p. _).

    Sec. 1068e. Payasyougo point of order.

        10. (a)(1) Except as
    provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to consider
    any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the
    provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have
    the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for
    either the period comprising--

          (A) the current fiscal year, the budget year set forth in the most
    recently completed concurrent resolution on the budget, and the four
    fiscal years following that budget year; or

          (B) the current fiscal year, the budget year set forth in the most
    recently completed concurrent resolution on the budget, and the nine
    fiscal years following that budget year.

      (2) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus shall be
    determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget
    relative to baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget
    Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control Act of 1985.

    [[Page 890]]

      (b) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is considered pursuant
    to a special order of the House directing the Clerk to add as new matter
    at the end of such measure the provisions of a separate measure as
    passed by the House, the provisions of such separate measure as passed
    by the House shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (a) of
    the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.

      (c)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the evaluation under
    paragraph (a) shall exclude a provision expressly designated as an
    emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles in the case of a
    point of order under this clause against consideration of--

          (A) a bill or joint resolution;

          (B) an amendment made in order as original text by a special order
    of business;

          (C) a conference report; or

          (D) an amendment between the Houses.

      (2) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified in
    subparagraph (1)) to a bill or joint resolution, the evaluation under
    paragraph (a) shall give no cognizance to any designation of emergency.

      (3) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in order as
    original text by a special order of business, a conference report, or an
    amendment between the Houses includes a provision expressly designated
    as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair
    shall put the question of consideration with respect thereto.

      Paragraph (a) was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 405, H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 4, 2007, p. _ (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Paragraph (a) was amended,
    and paragraphs (b) and (c) were added, in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(j),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _).

    [[Page 891]]

    _). Under paragraph (c), the Chair puts the question of consideration
    before the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole on a bill
    containing an emergency declaration (Jan. 26, 2009, p. _).

      The Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the Committee on
    the Budget as to the net effect of a provision on the relevant surplus
    or deficit (Dec. 12, 2007, p. _). Spending provided by appropriation
    acts does not constitute ``direct spending'' for purposes of paragraph
    (a) (May 15, 2008, p. _). The Committee on the Budget is required to use
    the baseline prescribed by paragraph (a) in providing estimates for the
    Chair, but the Chair will not advise which baseline was used for
    purposes of consideration of a given concurrent resolution on the budget
    (May 14, 2008, p.