[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 113th Congress]
[113rd Congress]
[House Document 112-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 850-907]
[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 reported in 
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 851]]

already in progress. This subparagraph does not apply to transfers of 
unexpended balances within the department or agency for which they were 
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




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.



[[Page 852]]



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.




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 amendments 
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. 1041. Designated emergencies reported in 
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 853]]

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 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




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 854]]

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 (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

  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).


[[Page 855]]

(f) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 
2005, p. 44).

  Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215, H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Paragraph (e) was not effective with 
respect to discretionary spending from 2002 to 2011 (from the expiration 
of section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
by operation of section 275 of that Act until its revival by the Budget 
Control Act of 2011) (sec. 104, P.L. 112-25). A technical correction to 
paragraph



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 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).


  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).


[[Page 856]]

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).
  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

  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, pp. 
17890, 17891). 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 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, pp. 15655, 15656); 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).

  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. 18384; June 29, 2005, p. 14804). 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 857]]

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 
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).

  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. 14181).



[[Page 858]]

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, pp. 15193, 15194, p. 
15199 and May 25, 2006, p. 9790, 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 susceptible 
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. 14181). 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

  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 859]]

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 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



  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. 8309). The 110th 
through 113th Congresses adopted the same procedure (sec. 511(a)(5), H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(4), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9; sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _; 
sec. 3(b)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. _), to wit:

  Sec. 3. (a)(4)(A) During the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, except 
as provided in subparagraph (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.


[[Page 860]]

a proponent of the question and an opponent but shall be decided without 
intervening motion.
  (B) If a point of order under subparagraph (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

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

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

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

        a given bill.

  (D) If a question under subparagraph (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 

        subject to a demand 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).



[[Page 861]]

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). A lapsed authorization is not ``previously 
authorized'' within the meaning of that phrase in paragraph (a)(1) (June 
27, 2012, p. _).
  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

  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 appropriation bill enacted for that fiscal year, 
constituted sufficient authorization for a lump sum supplemental 
appropriation for the White House for the same fiscal year (Nov. 30, 
1973, 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).

  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 (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. 18384; June 29, 2005, p. 14798) was held 
unauthorized where such funding was authorized only from the general 
fund. 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, pp. 10376, 10377).


[[Page 862]]

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 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

  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, pp. 20597, 
20598).


  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 863]]

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 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,



[[Page 864]]

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). 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 (June 
27, 2012, p. _) 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




[[Page 865]]




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).





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





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. 
10671); (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); (4) 
setting a floor on spending that is not established by existing law 
(July 23, 2003, pp. 19228, 19229); (5) establishing a legislative 
formula for funding (Feb. 18, 2011, p. _).



[[Page 866]]

15353; July 29, 1998, p. 17956) or a loan guarantee program (July 13, 
2004, pp. 15212, 15213). Similarly, a provision canceling funds under 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was held to be 
legislation (June 16, 2004, p. 12554). 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).
  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. 11326; Mar. 
24, 2010, p. _), 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.

  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, 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, pp. 4700-02 (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).

  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, pp. 10376, 10377).

  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).


[[Page 867]]

tained by tabling of appeal)) as does one establishing a select 
committee (Mar. 16, 2006, pp. 3793, 3794) or a trust fund in the 
Treasury (June 9, 2006, p. 10680). An amendment proposed in a motion to 
recommit incorporating by reference amendments that changed existing law 
constitutes legislation (July 24, 2009, p. 19225).

  An amendment to a general appropriation bill stating a legislative 
position constitutes legislation (July 24, 2001, pp. 14349, 14351; July 
9, 2009, pp. 17242, 17243 (sustained by tabling of appeal), pp. 17309, 
17310 (sus



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).


[[Page 868]]

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).
  A limitation may place some minimal, incidental 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

  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, pp. 15838, 15839). 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, 
22007).


[[Page 869]]

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).
  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-

  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 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).

  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).



[[Page 870]]


  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 871]]

tions 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 
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, pp. 15860, 15861); (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

[[Page 872]]

drug has been prescribed ``for the purpose of relieving or managing 
pain'' (July 7, 2004, pp. 14679, 14682); (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, pp. 10364, 10365); (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, 
pp. 11945, 11946) 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. 3722); (39) require a 
determination regarding a specific type of employment behavior before 
initiating an employment investigation (June 8, 2005, pp. 11948-50); 
(40) require a determination as to whether a local educational agency 
had obtained parental consent before providing military recruiters 
student information (June 24, 2005, pp. 14185, 14186); (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, pp. 14891-93); (42) prescribe a policy for an 
agency in the distribution of grants (June 6, 2006, pp. 10105, 10106); 
(43) require a determination of citizenship based on birth (June 6, 
2006, pp. 10108, 10109); (44) require a determination of what activities 
tend to ``continue'' specified litigation (Feb. 18, 2011, p. _); (45) 
require the promulgation of regulations to be based on ``hard science'' 
(June 15, 2011, p. _); (46) require a determination of the end use of 
unmanned aircraft authorized by the Secretary (June 27, 2012, p. _).
  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) 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 goods and services that are 
``nondomestic'' (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178), not ``produced'' 
domestically (June 1, 2011, p. _), not ``100 percent domestic in 
origin'' (June 2, 2011, p. _), not ``substantially manufactured'' 
domestically (July 7, 2011, p. _), or not manufactured by a 
``domestically operated entity'' (June 2, 2011, p. _); (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 appropria

  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 the official 
being consulted to make determinations not specifically required by law 
(July 22, 1980, p. 19087).


[[Page 873]]

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. 17521-23) unless also requiring a 
determination of the date a given road project commenced (May 19, 2005, 
pp. 10364, 10365); (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 certain 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, pp. 9993, 9994; June 6, 2006, pp. 10106, 10107).
  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


[[Page 874]]

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; July 16, 2009, 
pp. 18124, 18125). 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).
  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

  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), the same result 
adhering in the case of a limitation on funds for ``semi-professional 
motorsports,'' ``mixed martial arts,'' and ``sporting events'' (July 18, 
2012, p. _). 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 projects for which indexes were already required 
by law (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22206).


[[Page 875]]

determinative under existing law are ``known'' (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, 
p. 121; July 15, 1997, p. 14493; July 24, 1997, p. 15758).

  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



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.

  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. 3713); and (4) changing a permanent appropriation 
in existing law to restrict its availability 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).

  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).


[[Page 876]]

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).

  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



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).

  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 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).


[[Page 877]]

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). 
Similarly, a limitation on funds to implement any ``change'' to a 
requirement in a regulation no longer in effect was held to impose a 
determination not required by current law (June 6, 2012, p. _). 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).
  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

  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, pp. 3786-88 (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 878]]

  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 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. 9, 2004, pp. 17853, 17854).


  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).




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. 10673)), 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, 
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).



[[Page 879]]

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, 
pp. 17485, 17486), 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).


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


  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, 
pp. 17715, 17716; June 5, 2012, 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).


[[Page 880]]

p. 17533); (5) 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); (6) extending the 
availability of certain housing assistance to certain recipients (June 
13, 2006, pp. 11041, 11042); (7) specifying a different regulation 
required to be reissued by an agency (Feb. 16, 2011, p. _); (8) adding a 
rule of construction regarding the implementation of a provision of law 
(as opposed to merely excepting that provision from the coverage of a 
legislative limitation on funds) (Feb. 16, 2011, p. _); (9) expanding a 
requirement for compliance with the Buy America Act to include specified 
domestic content for certain items (June 27, 2012, p. _).
  The following amendments to legislative provisions permitted to remain 
have been held to propose additional legislation: (1) adding another 
class to those on which assistance is conferred (June 22, 1983, p. 
16851); (2) adding an additional nation to a legislative provision 
addressing sanctions against one nation (July 13, 2000, p. 14092); (3) 
adding an additional item to a reporting requirement (July 6, 2011, p. 
_); (4) striking text that resulted in extending the legislative reach 
of the pending bill (July 17, 1996,

  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 881]]

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 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,



               ``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 882]]

  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. 
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 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).

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


[[Page 883]]

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

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

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

  Where a paragraph containing new legislation provides in one part for 
a discharge of employees, which means a retrenchment, and in another 
part embodies legislation to bring about the particular retrenchment 
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 884]]


  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 
interpretation of the ``Holman Rule,'' but which do not reflect the 
current form or interpretation of that rule, are found in IV, 3846, 
3885-3892; VII, 1484, 1486-1492, 1498, 1500, 1515, 1563, 1564, 1569; 
June 1, 1892, p. 4920.



Sec. 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).

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


[[Page 885]]

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).

  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, pp. 10681, 10682).




Sec. 1063a. Offsetting en bloc amendments.

  To  invoke the 
protection of clause 2(f), an amendment must not (1) propose a change 
other than a transfer of appropriations among objects in the bill, such 
as increasing the amount of a deferral (June 15, 2000, p. 11064), 
rescission (Feb. 16, 2011, p. _), or limitation on obligations from a 
trust fund (June 26, 2012, p. _); (2) reach back in the reading (Feb. 
15, 2011, p. _); or (3) increase the levels of budget authority or 
outlays carried in the bill (July 12, 2000, p. 14071; July 13, 2004, pp. 
15193, 15194, pp. 15198, 15199; June 6, 2012, p. _), 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. 9975). 
On one occasion, the House adopted an order rendering clause 2(f) 
unavailable during consideration of a bill in the case of an amendment 
transferring appropriations among objects falling within more than one 
suballocation under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 (Feb. 15, 2011, p. _), and an amendment to such bill proposing such 
a transfer was ruled out as impermissibly addressing portions of the 
bill not yet read (Feb. 15, 2011, p. _).



(d) Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.


Sec. 1063b. Spending reduction account.

  The  112th and 113th 
Congresses (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. _) established (1) a procedure for reducing an 
amount in a general appropriation bill and displaying that reduction in 
a spending reduction account in the bill, and (2) a point of order 
against an amendment increasing the level of budget authority in a 
general appropriation bill, as follows:


          (1) During the reading of a general 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 from an object or 

        objects in the bill to a spending reduction account. When 

        considered en bloc under this clause, such amendments may amend 

        portions of the bill not yet read for amendment (following 

        disposition of any points 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.

          (2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), it shall not be in 

        order to consider an amendment to a spending reduction account 


[[Page 886]]

        in the

        House or in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 

        Union.

          (3) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 

        general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget 

        authority in the bill (unless considered en bloc with another 

        amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease 

        in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI).

          (4) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall not 

        apply to a spending reduction account.

          (5) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in the 

        Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union unless it 

        includes a spending reduction account as the last section of the 

        bill. An order to report a general appropriation bill to the 

        House shall constitute authority for the chair of the Committee 

        on Appropriations to add such a section to the bill or modify 

        the figure contained therein.

          (6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``spending 

        reduction account'' means an account in a general appropriation 

        bill that bears that caption and contains only a recitation of 

        the amount by which an applicable allocation of new budget 

        authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 

        of 1974 exceeds the amount of new budget authority proposed by 


        the bill.


  The Chair is persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget as to whether an amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill under paragraph (3) (e.g., Feb. 
15, 2011, p. _; Apr. 7, 2011, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)). An 
amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing a limitation on 
funds in the bill for the instant fiscal year was held not to propose a 
net increase in budget authority within the meaning of this provision 
(Feb. 18, 2011, p. _). An amendment to a general appropriation bill that 
proposed to do more than merely transfer appropriations from objects in 
the bill to a spending reduction account (July 6, 2011, p. _) or 
proposed to increase the figure in the spending reduction account by 
greater than the amount of reductions in earlier accounts (June 1, 2012, 
p. _) was ineligible to avail itself of the protection of paragraph (1) 
to reach ahead to text not yet read for amendment.



Sec. 1064. Highway funding.

  3.  It shall not be in order to 
consider a general appropriation bill or joint resolution, or conference 
report thereon, that--



[[Page 887]]

(excluding any transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury); or
      (a) provides spending authority derived from receipts deposited in 
the Highway Trust Fund


      (b) reduces or otherwise limits the accruing balances of the 
Highway Trust Fund,
for any purpose other than for those activities authorized for the 
highway or mass transit categories.

  This clause was rewritten entirely in the 112th Congress (sec. 
2(d)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). For its predecessor, which 
enforced specified minimum levels of surface transportation obligation 
limitations, see Sec. 1064 of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th 
Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).


Sec. 48114. Funding for Aviation Programs.


Sec. 1064d. 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), 
extended to 2007 by its reenactment in title 49 (sec. 104, P.L. 108-
176), and extended to 2015 by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
2012 (sec. 104, P.L. 112-95)) 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 

                fiscal year pursuant to sections 48101, 48102, 48103, 

                and 106(k) shall--

  (i) in fiscal year 2013, be equal to 90 percent of the estimated level 
of receipts plus interest credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
for that fiscal year; and

  (ii) in fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year thereafter, be equal to 
the sum of--

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

                limited for aviation investment programs listed in 

                subsection (b)(1) 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 2015, if 


[[Page 888]]

        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) Estimated level of receipts plus interest.--The term 

        ``estimated 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 

        provides an appropriation (or any amendment thereto) for any 

        fiscal year through fiscal year 2015 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.



[[Page 889]]

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 890]]

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 amendment to a House bill 
not reported from the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 
28638-42). The rule does not apply to private bills 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

  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).

  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).


[[Page 891]]

authorizing payment from an appropriation to be made (Jan. 31, 1923, p. 
2794).
  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)

  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 892]]

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 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.



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).

  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 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)):

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

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


[[Page 893]]

        that juris

        diction. 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 

        measures will continue to be viewed broadly to include any 

        meaningful revenue proposal that the Senate may attempt to 

        originate.


[[Page 894]]

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) 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) to process the 
importation of any product from Iran (June 18, 2004, pp. 13041, 13042); 
(3) 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. 12958); (4) to carry out various 
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (June 1, 2011, p. _).
  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

  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 895]]

(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). A limitation on funds 
(above a specified amount) in any Act for the Internal Revenue Service 
to administer any tax collection contract was conceded to inevitably 
constrain the collection of revenues and was stricken from the bill 
(June 28, 2007, p. 17932). 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 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


[[Page 896]]

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 
remaining with the system (Oct. 4, 1989, p. 23262); and (5) a fee 
incident to


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, 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 897]]

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 
agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not



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, pp. 1621, 1622 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 3, 2011, p. _). 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).


[[Page 898]]



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.




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


[[Page 899]]

lation reported pursuant to such directives would cause an increase in 
net direct spending (as such term is defined in clause 10) for the 
period covered by such concurrent resolution.



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 such that the reconciliation 
legis



  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 402, H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), 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. 7), and rewritten in the 112th Congress to 
focus on an increase in direct spending instead of a reduction in the 
surplus or an increase in the deficit (sec. 2(d)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
2011, 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)--


      (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. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).

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


[[Page 900]]

marks, 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;


Sec. 1068d. Congressional earmarks.

      (1) a  bill or joint 
resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of 
congressional ear


      (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;


[[Page 901]]

spective 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
      (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 re

      (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--


[[Page 902]]

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
      (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

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

  (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.


[[Page 903]]

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.
  (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

  (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

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


  (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.


[[Page 904]]

_). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 404, H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), a similar point of order having 
operated during part of the 109th Congress (H. Res. 1000, Sept. 14, 
2006, p. 18316). Paragraph (b) was added in the 111th Congress (and 
subsequent paragraphs redesignated) (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, 
p. 7), a similar point of order having operated during part of the 110th 
Congress (H. Res. 491, June 18, 2007, p. 16163). A clarifying change to 
paragraph (b)(2) was made during the 111th Congress (sec. 2, H. Res. 
544, June 16, 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, pp. 2737, 2738 (sustained by tabling of appeal)), or against a 
reported measure where the committee report contains such a statement 
(May 10, 2007, pp. 12190, 12191; May 23, 2007, p. 13686). 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. 12191). A point of order under this clause is untimely after 
consideration has begun (Mar. 23, 2007, pp. 7420, 7423). 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. 25434 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or 
a rule effecting a ``self-executing'' amendment (Sept. 27, 2007, p. 
25723)) has no tendency to waive the applicability of paragraph (a) 
within the meaning of paragraph (c). After a point of order under 
paragraph (a)(1) is sustained against consideration of a bill, a 
committee may file a supplemental report pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of 
rule XIII to correct a technical error in the depiction of a bill number 
in the portion of a committee report regarding disclosure under this 
clause (July 30, 2010, p. _).


---   <> 10. (a)(1) Except 
as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to 
consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or a 
conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the 
net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either--
  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, p. 
9053). 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, pp. 9050, 9052). A manager of a measure 
who controls time for debate against the point of order that is to be 
resolved by a question of consideration is entitled to close debate (Mar 
21, 2010, p. _).


[[Page 905]]

      (A) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years 
following that budget year; or

      (B) the current year, the budget year, and the nine fiscal years 
following that budget year.

  (2) For the purpose of this clause, the terms ``budget year'' and 
``current year'' have the meanings specified in section 250 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and the term 
``mandatory spending'' has the meaning of ``direct spending'' specified 
in such section 250 except that such term shall also include provisions 
in appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to substantive law 
as described in section 3(4)(C) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010.

  (b) If a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto, is 
considered pursuant to a special order of the House directing the Clerk 
to add as new matter at the end of such bill or joint resolution the 
entire text of a separate measure or measures as passed by the House, 
the new matter proposed to be added 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 the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 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;


[[Page 906]]

      (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.


-  For the <> 112th 
Congress, the House (in sec. 3(g) of H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _) 
established a point of order against consideration of a measure 
increasing mandatory spending above a certain threshold over certain 
periods as follows:

  Clause 10 was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 405, H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)) and amended in the 111th Congress 
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7; sec. 5, H. Res. 1500, July 1, 
2010, p. _). In its original form it addressed increases in the deficit 
or surplus caused by changes in revenue and direct spending. It was 
changed to its present form in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). The Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates 
from the chair of the Committee on the Budget whether the net effect of 
an amendment increases mandatory spending as compared to the proposition 
to which offered (e.g., Jan. 26, 2011, p. _; Mar. 3, 2011, p. _ 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 10, 2011, p. _; Mar. 11, 2011, p. 
_). A point of order against a bill under this clause is not timely 
pending the question of engrossment and third reading (Mar. 30, 2011, p. 
_).

  (g) Limitation on Long-term Spending.--

          (1) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint 

        resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on 

        Appropriations), or an amendment thereto or a conference report 

        thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect 

        of increasing mandatory spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for 

        any period described in paragraph (2).

          (2)(A) The applicable periods for purposes of this clause are 

        any of the first four consecutive 10-fiscal-year periods 

        beginning with the first fiscal year following the last fiscal 

        year for which the applicable concurrent resolution on the 

        budget sets forth appropriate budgetary levels.

          (2)(B) In this paragraph, the applicable concurrent resolution 

        on the budget is the one most recently adopted before the date 

        on which a committee first reported the bill or joint resolution 


---
[[Page 907]]


        described in paragraph (a).




Sec. 1068j. Former payasyougo point of 
order.

  Under the  former clause 10, the Chair was 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. 34065). 
Spending provided by appropriation acts did not constitute ``direct 
spending'' (May 15, 2008, p. 9229). For a complete recitation of 
precedents under the former clause, see Sec. 1068e of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).





Sec. 1068i. Availability of introduced measures.

    11. It 
shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has 
not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in 
session on such a day) on which such measure has been available to 
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.





  This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). It applies to bills and joint resolutions only 
(Jan. 7, 2011, p. _) and is predicated on a number of days (not hours) 
of availability, including electronic availability in consonance with 
clause 3 of rule XXIX (Mar. 17, 2011, p. _). A point of order under this 
clause is not ripe until the measure in question is called up for 
consideration (Mar. 17, 2011, p. _).