    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress]
    [119th Congress]
    [House Document 118-187]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 901-962]
    [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.

    [[Page 902]]

    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.

    Sec. 1037. Reappropriations prohibited.

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

    [[Page 903]]

    subject matter) and except rescissions of appropriations contained in
    appropriation Acts.

    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

    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.

    [[Page 904]]

    gency 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.

    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 Emer

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

      (f)  During the reading of an appropriation bill for amendment in
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, it shall be
    in order to consider en bloc amendments proposing only to transfer
    appropriations among objects in the bill without increasing the levels
    of budget authority or outlays in the bill. When considered en bloc
    under this paragraph, such amendments may amend portions of the bill not
    yet read for amendment (following disposition of any points 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. 1042a. Amendments increasing budget authority
    prohibited.

      (g)  An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be
    in order if proposing a net increase in the level of budget authority in
    the bill.

    [[Page 905]]

    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).

    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

      The clause remained unamended until January 3, 1983, when the 98th
    Congress restructured it in the basic form of paragraphs (a)-(d). For
    discussion of the House, by standing order, making applicable an
    iteration of the ``Holman Rule'' to certain retrenchments in the 115th,
    118th, and 119th Congresses, see Sec. 1062, infra.

      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.

      Paragraph (a)(2) (formerly clause 6), from section 139(c) of the
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190f(c)), was made part
    of the standing rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24).
    Previously, a reappropriation of an unexpended balance for an object
    authorized by law was in order on a general appropriation bill (IV,
    3591, 3592; VII, 1156, 1158). This provision was amended in the 99th
    Congress by section 228(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
    Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177) to permit the Committee on
    Appropriations to report transfers of unexpended balances within the
    department or agency for which originally appropriated.

    [[Page 906]]

    (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 (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

      Paragraph (c) retained the prohibition against amendments changing
    existing law but permitted limitation amendments during the reading of
    the bill by paragraph only if specifically authorized by existing law
    for the period of the limitation. In the 105th Congress paragraph (c)
    was amended to treat as legislation an amendment to a general
    appropriation bill that makes funding contingent on whether
    circumstances not made determinative by existing law are ``known'' (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

      Paragraph (d) provided a new procedure for consideration of
    retrenchment and other limitation amendments only when the reading of a
    general appropriation bill has been completed and only if the Committee
    of the Whole does not adopt a motion to rise and report the bill back to
    the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). In the 104th Congress
    paragraph (d) was amended to limit the availability of the preferential
    motion to rise and report to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec.
    215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). In the 105th Congress it was
    further amended to make the motion preferential to any motion to amend
    at that stage (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

      Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215, H.
    Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). 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 (f) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).

    [[Page 907]]

      Paragraph (g), prohibiting amendments to general appropriation bills
    proposing a net increase in budget authority, was added in the 115th
    Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38), codifying a
    separate order adopted by the House from the 112th through 114th
    Congresses (sec. 3(j)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; sec. 3(d)(3),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(d)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015,
    p. 35). It was repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(cc), H. Res. 6,
    Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and reinstated in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). When it existed as a separate order, the
    Chair was persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the
    Committee on the Budget as to whether an amendment proposed a net
    increase in budget authority in the bill (e.g., Feb. 15, 2011, p. 1987;
    Apr. 7, 2011, pp. 5337, 5338 (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 the separate
    order (Feb. 18, 2011, pp. 2490-91).

    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).

      As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole, it follows that the
    enforcement of the rule must ordinarily occur during consideration in
    the 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 Union Calendar, 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,
    points of order in the Committee against a proposition in violation of
    this clause were overruled on the ground that the chair of the Committee
    lacked authority to pass upon the question (Apr. 8, 1943, p. 3150,
    3153).

    [[Page 908]]

    has risen and reported automatically pursuant to a special rule or,
    instead, by a motion at the end of the reading for amendment (June 22,
    1995, p. 16844).
      The enforcement of the rule has also occured in the House (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

      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 909]]

      General appropriation bills are read ``scientifically'' only by
    paragraph headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order
    against a paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto
    or before the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount
    (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 2.26). A point of order against a paragraph
    under this clause may be made only after that paragraph has been read by
    the Clerk, and not before its reading pending consideration of an
    amendment inserting language immediately prior thereto (June 6, 1985,
    pp. 14605, 14609). Where the reading of a paragraph of a general
    appropriation bill has been dispensed with by unanimous consent, the
    Chair inquires whether there are points of order against the paragraph
    before entertaining amendments or directing the Clerk to read further,
    but does not make such an inquiry where the Clerk has actually read the
    paragraph (May 31, 1984, p. 14608). Where a portion of the bill is
    considered as having been read and open to amendment by unanimous
    consent, points of order against provisions in that portion must be made
    before amendments are offered, and may not be reserved (Dec. 1, 1982, p.
    28175; May 19, 2000, p. 8595; July 22, 2003, p. 18984). Where a chapter
    is considered as read by unanimous consent and open to amendment at any
    point, no amendments are offered, and the Clerk begins to read the next
    chapter, it is too late to make a point of order against a paragraph in
    the preceding chapter (June 11, 1985, p. 15181). It is too late to rule
    out the entire paragraph after points of order against specific portions
    have been sustained and an amendment to the paragraph has been offered
    (June 27, 1974, pp. 21670-72).

      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).

      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 910]]

    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; May 29, 2014, p. 9205) or
    that the amendment constitutes a valid limitation (July 17, 1975, p.
    23239; June 16, 1976, p. 18666; July 18, 1995, p. 19357; June 24, 2003,
    pp. 15858, 15859). For example, the proponent of a provision in the bill
    or of an amendment, as the case may be, has the burden to show the
    following: (1) that any duties imposed by a limitation are merely
    ministerial or already required under existing law (July 16, 1998, p.
    15829); (2) in the case of language proposing a double-negative, that
    the object of the double-negative is specifically contemplated by
    existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19250-51, pp. 19251-53; see Sec. 1053,

      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).

      A point of order under this clause against an amendment must be raised
    (or reserved) before commencement of debate on the measure (e.g., May
    29, 2014, p. 9205).

    [[Page 911]]

    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 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). For the history and
    text of a former 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, see Sec. 1044b
    of the House Rules and Manual for the 115th Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).

    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 to rise
    and report 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 of
    the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
    may have been adopted is not debatable (Apr. 23, 1987, p. 9613) and
    takes precedence over any amendment (formerly only over a limitation or
    retrenchment amendment) (July 30, 1985, p. 21534; July 23, 1986, p.
    17431; Apr. 23, 1987, p. 9613), but only after completion of the reading
    and disposition

    [[Page 912]]

    Sec. 1045. Authorization of law for
    appropriations.

      A treaty  may provide the authorization by existing law required
    in the rule to justify appropriations if it has been ratified by the
    contracting parties (IV, 3587); however, where existing law authorizes
    appropriations for the U.S. share of facilities to be recommended in an
    agreement with another country containing specified elements, an
    agreement in principle with that country predating the authorization law
    and lacking the required elements is insufficient authorization (June
    28, 1993, p. 14421). An Executive Order does not constitute sufficient
    authorization in law absent proof of its derivation from a statute
    enacted by Congress authorizing the order and expenditure of funds (June
    15, 1973, p. 19855; June 25, 1974, p. 21036). Thus a Reorganization Plan
    submitted by the President pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 906 has the status of
    statutory law when it becomes effective and is sufficient authorization
    to support an appropriation for an office created by Executive Order
    issued pursuant to the Reorganization Plan (June 21, 1974, p. 20595). A
    constitutional guarantee of just compensation for a governmental taking
    of private property for public use does not itself constitute sufficient
    authorization by law for appropriations in a general appropriation bill
    for compensation of particular private property owners (July 18, 2001,
    pp. 13662-65; cf. VII, 1144).

      A resolution of the House has been held sufficient authorization for
    an appropriation for the salary of an employee of the House (IV, 3656-
    3658) even though the resolution may have been agreed to only by a
    preceding House (IV, 3660). Previous enactment of items of appropriation
    unauthorized by law does not justify similar appropriations in
    subsequent bills (VII, 1145, 1150, 1151) unless, if through
    appropriations previously made, a function of the Government has been
    established that would bring it into the category of continuation of
    works in progress (VII, 1280), or unless legislation in a previous
    appropriation Act has become permanent law (May 20, 1964, p. 11422). The
    omission to appropriate during a series of years for an object
    authorized by law does not repeal the law, and consequently an
    appropriation when proposed is not subject to the point of order (IV,
    3595). A lapsed authorization is not ``previously authorized'' within
    the meaning of that phrase in paragraph (a)(1) (June 27, 2012, p.
    10130).

      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).

    [[Page 913]]

    ment 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).
      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 enact

      The failure of Congress to enact into law separate legislation
    specifically modifying eligibility requirements for grant programs under
    existing law does not necessarily render appropriations for those
    programs subject to a point of order, where more general existing law
    authorizes appropriations for all of the programs proposed to be
    modified by new legislation pending before Congress (June 8, 1978, p.
    16778). However, whether organic statutes or general grants of authority
    in law constitute sufficient authorization to support appropriations
    depends on whether the general laws applicable to the function or
    department in question require specific or annual authorizations (June
    14, 1978, pp. 17616, 17622, 17626, 17630) or on whether a periodic
    authorization scheme has subsequently occupied the field (Sept. 9, 1997,
    p. 18197). An authorization of ``such sums as may be necessary'' is
    sufficient to support any dollar amount, but has no tendency to relieve
    other conditions of the authorization law (June 28, 1993, p. 14422).
    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).

      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. 1045a. Former reduction in level of
    unauthorized appropriation.

      In the 118th Congress  the House established a separate point of
    order for the first session of that Congress against reporting an
    unauthorized appropriation made in excess of the most recent level at
    which such appropriation was enacted into law, which if sustained, would
    cause the automatic adoption of an amendment reducing the amount of the
    appropriation in the bill to that most recent level (sec. 3(aa), H. Res.
    5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

    [[Page 914]]

    3640), and findings filed under the Bowman Act do not constitute
    authorization (IV, 3643).

    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 authorizations 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-

      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).

    Sec. 1047. Authorizations for public works.

      An  appropriation
    for a public work in excess of a fixed limit of cost (IV, 3583, 3584;
    VII, 1133), or for extending a service beyond the limits assigned by an
    executive officer exercising a lawful discretion (IV, 3598), or by
    actual law (IV, 3582, 3585), or for purposes prohibited by law are out
    of order (IV, 3580, 3581, 3702), as is an appropriation from the Highway
    Trust Fund where the project is specifically authorized from the general
    fund (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22175). However, the mere appropriation of a
    sum to complete a work does not fix a limit of cost such as would
    exclude future appropriations (IV, 3761). A declaration of policy in an
    act followed by specific provisions conferring authority upon a
    governmental agency to perform certain functions was construed not to
    authorize appropriations for purposes germane to the policy but not
    specifically authorized by the act (VII, 1200). A point of order will
    not lie against an amendment proposing to increase a lump sum for public
    works projects where language in the bill limits use of the 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).

    [[Page 915]]

    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.
    10130) and may not be invoked to fund a project that is not yet under
    construction (July 31, 1995, p. 21207). Where existing law (40 U.S.C.
    3307) specifically prohibits the making of an appropriation to construct
    or alter any public building involving more than a certain amount of
    money unless approved by the House and Senate Public Works Committees,
    an appropriation for such purposes not authorized by both committees is
    out of order notwithstanding the ``works in progress'' exemption,
    because the law specifically precludes the appropriation from being made
    (June 8, 1983, p. 14855). An appropriation from the Highway Trust Fund
    for an ongoing project was held not in order under the ``works in
    progress'' exception where the Internal Revenue Code ``occupied the
    field'' with a comprehensive authorization scheme not embracing the
    specified project (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173).
    Interruption of a work does not necessarily remove it from the
    privileges of the rule (IV, 3705-3708); but the continuation of the work
    must not be so conditioned in relation to place as to become a new work
    (IV, 3704). It has been held that a work has not begun within the
    meaning of the rule when an appropriation has been made for a site for a
    public building (IV, 3785), or when a commission has been created to
    select a site or when a site has actually been selected for a work (IV,
    3762, 3763), or when a survey has been made (IV, 3782-3784). ``Public
    works and objects already in progress'' include tangible matters like
    buildings, roads, etc., but not duties of officials in executive
    departments (IV, 3709-3713), or the continuance of a work indefinite as
    to completion and intangible in nature like the gauging of streams (IV,
    3714, 3715). A general system of roads on which some work has been done,
    or an extension of an existing road (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140), may not
    be admitted as a work in progress (VII, 1333). 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,

    [[Page 916]]

    (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. 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

    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.

    [[Page 917]]

    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, pp. 2509, 2510).

      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, pp. 4779, 4780), as does a provision proposing a rescission of
    budget authority provided in law other than appropriation Acts, such as
    contract authority (e.g., Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22138; May 15, 1997, p.
    8510; July 23, 1997, p. 15353; July 29, 1998, p. 17956) or a loan
    guarantee program (July 13, 2004, 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).

      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); May 18, 2016, pp. 6657-08
    (sustained by tabling of 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).

    [[Page 918]]

    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).
      Language in an appropriation bill precluding funds for projects not
    authorized by law or beyond the amount authorized has been held in order

      Although the object to be appropriated for may be described without
    violating the rule (IV, 3864), an amendment proposing an appropriation
    under a heading that indicates an unauthorized purpose as its object has
    been ruled out (Oct. 29, 1991, p. 28814). For example, an amendment
    proposing to make certain funds available for a specified report not
    contemplated by existing law was held to constitute legislation in
    violation of clause 2(c) (June 13, 2000, p. 10509). The fact that a
    legislative item has been carried in appropriation bills for many years
    does not exempt it from a point of order (VII, 1445, 1656). The
    reenactment from year to year of a law intended to apply during the year
    of its enactment only is not relieved, however, from the point that it
    is legislation (IV, 3822). Limits of cost for public works may not be
    made or changed (IV, 3761, 3865-3867; VII, 1446), nor contracts
    authorized (IV, 3868-3870; May 14, 1937, p. 4595).

      An amendment to a general appropriation bill stating a legislative
    position constitutes legislation (July 24, 2001, pp. 14349, 14351; July
    9, 2009, pp. 17242, 17243 (sustained by tabling of appeal), pp. 17309,
    17310 (sustained 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). A proviso directing the Postal
    Service to maintain certain mail service standards in effect as of a
    date certain constitutes legislation (July 6, 2016, p. 10453 (sustained
    on appeal)). An amendment proposed in a motion to recommit incorporating
    by reference amendments that changed existing law constitutes
    legislation (July 24, 2009, p. 19225).

    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).

    [[Page 919]]

    18412; June 27, 1974, p. 21662; Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34712; June 9, 1978, p.
    16990).
      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.

      A limitation amendment prohibiting the use of funds for the
    construction of certain facilities unless such construction were subject
    to a project agreement was held not in order during the reading of the
    bill, even though existing law directed Federal officials to enter into
    such project agreements, on the ground that limitation amendments are in
    order during the reading only where existing law requires or permits the
    inclusion of limiting language in an appropriation Act, and not merely
    where the limitation is alleged to be ``consistent with existing law''
    (June 28, 1988, p. 16267).

      A limitation may place some minimal, 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). A duty imposed by
    a provision in the pending bill does not qualify as a duty required by
    law for purposes of a limitation amendment (June 9, 2014, p. 9693). The
    fact that a limitation may indirectly interfere with an executive
    official's discretionary authority by denying the use of funds (June 24,
    1976, p. 20408) or may impose certain incidental burdens on executive
    officials (Aug. 25, 1976, p. 27737) does not destroy the character of
    the limitation as long as it does not otherwise amend existing law and
    is descriptive of functions and findings already required to be
    undertaken by existing law. For example, a limitation precluding funds
    for specified Federal departments to file certain motions in specified
    civil actions (all matters of public record in the litigation and
    therefore available to responsible intervening Federal officials) was
    held to be a proper limitation (July 18, 2001, pp. 13683, 13684).

      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
    appropriation 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).

    [[Page 920]]

      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).

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

      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).

    [[Page 921]]

    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).
      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,

      The fact that existing law authorizes funds to be available until
    expended or without regard to fiscal year limitation does not prevent
    the Committee on Appropriations from limiting their availability to the
    fiscal year covered by the bill unless existing law mandates
    availability beyond the fiscal year (June 25, 1974, p. 21040; see also
    Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 32). The fact that a provision would constitute
    legislation for only a year does not make it a limitation in order under
    the rule (IV, 3936).

      A proposition to construe a law may not be admitted (IV, 3936-3938,
    see Sec. 1055, infra). Care also should be taken that the language of
    limitation be not such as, when fairly construed, would change existing
    law (IV, 3976-3983) or justify an executive officer in assuming an
    intent to change existing law (IV, 3984; VII, 1706).

      Although the Committee on Appropriations may include in a general
    appropriation bill language not in existing law limiting the use of
    funds in the bill, if such language also constitutes an appropriation it
    must be authorized by law (June 21, 1988, p. 15439). An amendment
    placing a limitation on funds for activities unrelated to the functions
    of departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane under
    clause 7 of rule XVI (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

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

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

    [[Page 922]]

    (7) require the enforcement of a standard where existing law only
    requires inspection of an area (July 30, 1986, p. 18189); (8) mandate
    contractual provisions (May 18, 1988, p. 11389); (9) 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);
    (10) 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); (11) mandate
    reductions in various appropriations by a variable percentage calculated
    in relation to ``overhead'' (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992,
    p. 16110); (12) 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); (13) 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); (14) 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); (15)
    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); (16) 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); (17)
    prescribe a policy for an agency in the distribution of grants (June 6,
    2006, pp. 10105, 10106).
      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) condition the availability of
    funds or the exercise of contract authority upon an interpretation of
    local law (July 17, 1981, p. 16327) or state law (July 7, 2015, p.
    10847) or a determination as to whether certain state or local laws
    exist (June 2, 2015, pp. 8361, 8362) where that interpretation or
    determination is not required by existing law; (4) incorporate by
    reference determinations already made in administrative processes not
    affecting programs funded by the bill (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361); (5)
    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);
    (6) apply standards of conduct to foreign entities where existing law
    requires such conduct only by domestic entities (July 17, 1986, p.
    16951);

    [[Page 923]]

    cable (the Buy America Act) (June 9, 2014, p. 9691), or that contain
    components produced in specified countries (June 20, 2014, p. 10575);
    (8) an investigation and determination of whether private airports are
    collecting certain fees for each enplaning passenger (Sept. 23, 1993, p.
    22213); (9) an investigation and determination of 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); (10) a determination of
    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);
    (11) a determination of ``successor agency'' status (Sept. 26, 1997, p.
    20347); (12) a determination whether a delegate or envoy to the United
    Nations has ``advocated'' the adoption of a certain convention (June 26,
    2000, p. 12355) or whether an activity would grant ``de jure or de facto
    support'' of another country's territorial claims (June 20, 2014, p.
    10576); (13) 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); (14) a
    determination of whether an organization ``embraced'' any form of
    slavery (May 18, 2016, p. 6698); (15) an investigation of the
    conscription requirements of other nations (July 13, 2000, p. 14121);
    (16) 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); (17) an investigation into whether an
    applicant for immigration has been involved in the harvesting of organs
    (July 18, 2001, pp. 13702-05); (18) a determination of what activities
    amount to ``continuation'' of specified litigation (Feb. 18, 2011, pp.
    2520, 2521) or what decision of a court constitutes ``resolution'' of a
    case (July 10, 2014, p. 11689); (19) the examination of certain
    legislative reports to determine whether an entity is specifically
    identified by name (July 17, 2002, pp. 13365, 13366); (20) an agency to
    track the legislative action of whether a contempt of Congress had been
    certified (Apr. 30, 2014, p. 6607); (21) in the case of a limitation
    with respect to certain roads on public land, 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); (22) 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); (23) 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); (24) a determination that a drug has been prescribed ``for
    the purpose of relieving or managing pain'' (July 7, 2004, pp. 14679,
    14682); (25) 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 the administrator
    of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to determine whether a
    Federal prohibition on certain mineral exploration

    [[Page 924]]

    (administered by a different Federal entity) remained in effect (Mar.
    15, 2006, p. 3722); (26) a determination regarding a specific type of
    employment behavior before initiating an employment investigation (June
    8, 2005, pp. 11948-50); (27) 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); (28) in the case of a limitation on the enforcement of a
    regulation against a specified class, a determination as to whether a
    person is a member of that class (June 30, 2005, pp. 14891-93); (29) a
    determination of citizenship based on birth (June 6, 2006, pp. 10108,
    10109); (30) a determination by the executive branch regarding the
    composition of the legislative branch (June 13, 2011, p. 9014; Apr. 29,
    2015, p. 5875); (31) a determination of the end use of unmanned aircraft
    authorized by the Secretary (June 27, 2012, p. 10171; June 9, 2014, p.
    9692); (32) a determination of whether education programs qualify
    students for certain occupational exams or licenses (Apr. 30, 2014, p.
    6597); (33) a determination by all contracting agencies of whether any
    aspect of a project is behind schedule or over budget (June 9, 2014, pp.
    9691, 9692); (34) a determination of whether an agency action would
    ``subvert'' or ``interfere'' with the integrity of a given standard
    (June 18, 2014, pp. 10411, 10412) or ``degrade the capabilities'' of a
    military unit (June 10, 2015, pp. 9259, 9260); (35) a determination of
    whether an entity had commenced a bankruptcy action (July 10, 2014, p.
    11686); (36) a determination of the flag status of vessels on pending
    export applications (July 10, 2014, pp. 11692, 11693); (37) a
    determination of whether a rule would increase electricity prices or
    reduce electricity reliability (July 10, 2014, pp. 11696, 11697); (38) a
    determination of the reason a financial institution provides services to
    an entity (July 15, 2014, p. 12063); (39) ascertainment by the District
    of Columbia of the state of Federal firearms law (July 15, 2014, pp.
    12565, 12566 (sustained on appeal)); (40) a determination of the meaning
    of ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections of civil and military sites in
    another country (Apr. 30, 2015, pp. 6052, 6053); (41) a determination of
    whether an individual is attending a gun show (June 3, 2015, pp. 8534,
    8535); (42) a determination of whether a regulation ``follows'' a
    specified environmental impact statement (July 7, 2015, pp. 10843,
    10844); (43) a determination by all agencies funded by the bill
    regarding the status of investigations of one of those agencies (May 25,
    2016, p. 7381).
      Furthermore, a limitation may constitute legislation if it has the
    effect of requiring executive officers to make investigations, compile
    evidence, or make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of
    them by law, such as requiring: (1) a judgment as to whether racial
    imbalance had been overcome (July 31, 1969, pp. 21653, 21675); (2)
    determinations of full Federal compliance with mandates imposed upon
    States (July 22, 1981, p. 16829); (3) the evaluation of the theoretical
    basis of a program (July 22, 1981, p. 16822); (4) determinations of
    propriety or effectiveness (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361; May 25, 1988, p.
    12275), or satisfactory quality (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18647); (5)
    determinations of rates of interest payable (July 29, 1982, p. 18624;
    Dec. 9, 1982, p. 29691); (6) a determination of whether the Office of
    Management and Budget interfered with the rulemaking authority of a
    regulatory agency (Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062); (7) the purchase of goods
    and services that are ``nondomestic'' (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178), not
    ``produced'' domestically (June 1, 2011, p. 8517), not ``100 percent
    domestic in origin'' (June 2, 2011, pp. 8558, 8559), not ``substantially
    manufactured'' domestically (July 7, 2011, pp. 10638, 10639), not
    manufactured by a ``domestically operated entity'' (June 2, 2011, pp.
    8557, 8558), not procured in a manner consistent with a law not
    otherwise appli

      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 925]]

    20373); (2) denying the use of funds to a Federal official not in
    compliance with an existing law that such official is charged with
    enforcing (Sept. 10, 1981, p. 20110); (3) reducing the availability of
    funds for trade adjustment assistance by amounts of unemployment
    insurance entitlements where the law establishing trade adjustment
    assistance already required the disbursing agency to take into
    consideration levels of unemployment insurance in determining payment
    levels (June 18, 1980, p. 15355); (4) denying the use of funds to carry
    out (or pay the salaries of persons who carry out) tobacco crop and
    insurance programs (July 20, 1995, p. 19798); (5) denying the use of
    funds for any transit project exceeding a specified cost-effectiveness
    index where the Chair was persuaded that the limitation applied to
    projects for which indexes were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993,
    p. 22206); (6) denying the use of funds to enforce FAA regulations to
    require domestic air carriers to surrender more than a specified number
    of ``slots'' at a given airport in preference of international air
    carriers where the Chair was persuaded that existing regulations already
    required the FAA to determine the origin of withdrawn slots (Sept. 23,
    1993, p. 22212); (7) denying the use of funds for troops ``except in
    time of war'' (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 70.1) or ``except in time of
    emergency'' (VII, 1657, which was the basis for the preceding ruling);
    (8) denying the use of funds to implement any sanction imposed by the
    United States on private commercial sales of agricultural commodities,
    medicine, or medical supplies to Cuba except for a sanction imposed
    pursuant to agreement with one or more other countries (July 20, 2000,
    p. 15751); (9) denying the use of funds by the Forest Service to
    construct roads or prepare timber sales in certain roadless areas where
    the executive was already charged by law with ongoing responsibility to
    maintain a comprehensive and detailed inventory of all land and
    renewable resources of the National Forest System (July 18, 1995, p.
    19357) or for the plan, design, study, or construction of roads in a
    specified forest for the purpose of private timber harvest (June 26,
    2007, p. 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.

    [[Page 926]]

    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. 19699; June 30,
    1993, p. 14871; July 16, 1998, p. 15828). The fact that such a provision
    relating to abortion funding may have been included in appropriation
    Acts in prior years applicable to funds in those laws does not permit
    the inclusion of similar language requiring such determinations, not
    required by law, with respect to funds for the fiscal year in question
    (Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406); and where the provision, applicable to
    Federal funds, was permitted to remain in a bill (no point of order
    having been made), an amendment striking the word ``Federal,'' and
    thereby broadening the provision to include District of Columbia funds
    as well, was ruled out (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29004; 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 different or more onerous
    determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113). But where the exception
    applies only in the case of rape, adding ``or incest'' requires
    additional determinations and is therefore not ``merely perfecting''
    (May 29, 2014, p. 9205-06). 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

    [[Page 927]]

    was persuaded that the limitation applied to projects for which indexes
    were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22206).
      An exception to a limitation on funds for the Office of Personnel
    Management to enter contracts for health benefit plans that required
    determinations of ``equivalence'' of benefits was held to impose new
    duties (July 16, 1998, p. 15829). However, an exception to a similar
    limitation that merely excepted certain specified coverage and plans was
    held not to impose new duties (July 16, 1998, p. 15841). Similarly, a
    limitation denying the use of funds in an appropriation bill for the
    General Services Administration to dispose of Federally owned
    ``agricultural'' land declared surplus was held to impose new duties
    because the determination whether surplus lands are ``agricultural'' was
    not required by law (Aug. 20, 1980, pp. 22156-58), 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, pp. 11636, 11637), ``marketing activities'' (Apr. 30, 2014, p.
    6604), regulations not based on ``hard science'' (June 15, 2011, p.
    9342); and ``local law enforcement agencies'' (where the program
    authorized assistance merely to states) (June 18, 2014, p. 10415-16).
    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

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

    Sec. 1055. Contingencies and congressional
    actions.

      An amendment  making an appropriation contingent upon a recommendation
    (June 27, 1979, p. 17054) or action not specifically required by law is
    legislation; such as a provision limiting the use of funds in a bill
    ``unless'' or ``until'' an action contrary to existing law is taken
    (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 47.1; July 24, 1996, p. 18888). Where existing
    law requires an agency to furnish certain information to congressional
    committees upon request, without a subpoena, it is not in order to make
    funding for that agency contingent upon its furnishing information to
    subcommittees upon request (July 30, 1980, p. 20475), or contingent upon
    submission of an agreement by a Federal official to Congress and
    congressional review thereof (July 31, 1986, p. 18370). Similarly, it is
    not in order to condition funds on legal determinations to be made by a
    Federal court and an executive department (June 28, 1988, p. 16261; see
    Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 47.2).

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

    [[Page 928]]

    ability until all general appropriation bills are presented to the
    President (June 29, 1987, p. 18083). A section in a general
    appropriation bill directly contravening existing law to subject the use
    of local funds to congressional approval was held to constitute
    legislation where it was shown that some local (District of Columbia)
    funds deriving from interest accounts were available to the Financial
    Control Board without subsequent congressional approval (Aug. 6, 1998,
    p. 19079).
      The following provisions have been ruled out as legislation: (1)
    making the availability of certain funds contingent upon subsequent
    congressional action on legislative proposals resolving the policy issue
    (Nov. 18, 1981, p. 28064); (2) making the availability of funds
    contingent upon subsequent enactment of legislation containing specified
    findings (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30503); (3) making the availability of
    funding in the bill contingent on the funding of a separate provision of
    law (Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3713); and (4) changing a permanent appropriation
    in existing law to restrict its avail

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

      The following provisions also have been held to be legislation as they
    required: (1) a congressional committee to promulgate regulations to
    limit the use of an appropriation (June 13, 1979, p. 14670), or
    otherwise to direct the activities of a committee (June 24, 1992, p.
    16087); (2) a substantive determination by a State or local government
    official or agency that is not otherwise required by existing law (July
    25, 1985, p. 20569); (3) the Selective Service Administration to issue
    regulations to bring its classifications into conformance with a Supreme
    Court decision (July 20, 1989, p. 15405); (4) a change in a rule of the
    House (IV, 3819); (5) an agency to submit all quarterly and annual
    reports required by law in accordance with standards for reports under a
    specified law not otherwise applicable (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21548); (6)
    compliance (Sept. 4, 2003, p. 21213; June 9, 2014, p. 9692) or
    consistency (June 9, 2014, p. 9690-91) with a law not otherwise
    applicable.

    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). For example, a provision reaffirming the status of land
    taken into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe under a specified
    law was held to constitute legislation (July 12, 2016, p. 11048).
    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).

    [[Page 929]]

    held out of order as requiring the official to apply noncurrent case law
    (June 7, 1978, p. 16655).
      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

      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).

      The mere recitation in an amendment that a determination is to be made
    pursuant to existing laws and regulations, absent a citation to the law
    imposing such responsibility, is not sufficient proof by the proponent
    of an amendment to overcome a point of order that the amendment
    constitutes legislation (Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25606; May 8, 1986, p.
    10156). A limitation denying the use of funds to apply certain
    provisions of the Internal Revenue Code other than under regulations in
    effect on a prior date is legislation as it would require an official to
    apply regulations no longer current in order to render an appropriation
    available (June 7, 1978, p. 16655; Aug. 19, 1980, pp. 21978-80).
    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. 8444).
    However, an exception to a limitation on the use of funds for designated
    Federal activities that were already authorized by law in more general
    terms, was held in order as not containing legislation (June 27, 1979,
    pp. 17033-35).

      Language waiving provisions of an existing law that did not
    specifically permit inclusion of such a waiver in an appropriation bill
    has been ruled out (e.g., Nov. 13, 1975, p. 36271; June 20, 1996, p.
    14847; May 19, 2000, p. 8600), as has language identical to that
    contained in an authorization bill previously passed by the House but
    not yet signed into law (Aug. 4, 1978, p. 24436), or a proposition for
    repeal of existing law (VII, 1403; Mar. 16, 2006, pp. 3786-88 (sustained
    on appeal)). A provision explicitly superseding existing law has been
    ruled out (Sept. 6, 2017, p. 13305; Sept. 6, 2017, p. 13305; Sept. 6,
    2017, p. 13305).

    [[Page 930]]

    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).
      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

      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).

    [[Page 931]]

    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).

    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,

    Sec. 1058. Waivers; amending legislation permitted
    to remain.

      The House  may, by agreeing to a report from the Committee on Rules or
    by adopting an order under suspension of the rules, allow legislation on
    general appropriation bills (IV, 3260-3263, 3839-3845). Where an
    unauthorized appropriation or legislation is permitted to remain in a
    general appropriation bill by waiver or by failure to raise a point of
    order, an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding
    legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another
    unauthorized purpose is in order (IV, 3823-3835, 3838; VII, 1405, 1413-
    1415; June 9, 1954, p. 5963; July 27, 1954, p. 12287; Oct. 1, 1975, p.
    31058; June 8, 1977, p. 17941; July 17, 1985, p. 19435; Sept. 11, 1985,
    p. 23398; June 14, 1988, p. 14341). However, this does not permit an
    amendment that adds additional legislation (IV, 3836, 3837, 3862; VII,
    1402-1436; Dec. 9, 1971, p. 4595; Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27291; June 10, 1977,
    p. 18402; 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,
    pp. 13127, 13128), earmarks by directing a new use of funds not required
    by law (July 26, 1985, pp. 20811, 20813), or increases an authorized
    amount above the authorized ceiling (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513).

    [[Page 932]]

    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).
      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, pp. 8334, 8335). 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

      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).

      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, pp.
    10423, 10424; July 9, 2014, p. 11549-50); (4) striking text that
    resulted in extending the legislative reach of the pending bill (July
    17, 1996, 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. 2130); (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, pp. 2138,
    2140); (9) expanding a requirement for compliance with the Buy America
    Act to include specified domestic content for certain items (June 27,
    2012, p. 10152); (10) expanding a list of legislative restrictions on
    the expenditure of certain water financing by requiring new
    determinations of population loss and housing vacancy (June 25, 2015, p.
    10599).

    [[Page 933]]

    gered 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).
      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 endan

      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).

    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, pp. 22007-11; Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, p. 35520;
    June 30, 1987, p. 18308).

                   ``holman rule'' on retrenching expenditures

    [[Page 934]]

    form prior to the 98th Congress, but which do not reflect the form or
    interpretation of the current standing rule, are found in IV, 3846,
    3885-3892; VII, 1484, 1486-1492, 1498, 1500, 1515, 1563, 1564, 1569;
    June 1, 1892, p. 4920.

    Sec. 1062. Legislation reducing
    expenditures.

      As explained  in the annotation in Sec. 1043, supra, the amendment of
    clause 2(b) in the 98th Congress narrowed the ``Holman Rule,'' an
    exception to the general prohibition against legislation, to cover only
    retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill, and not
    also 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 has, for example, 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). In the 115th, 118th, and 119th
    Congresses, however, the House provided that retrenchments may consist
    of reductions of amounts of money in the bill and the reductions
    contained in the prior form of the rule as it applied to number and
    salary of officers and compensation of persons (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38; sec. 5, H. Res. 787, Mar. 20, 2018, p. _; sec.
    3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _; sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2025,
    p. _). Decisions that involved interpretation of the ``Holman Rule'' in
    its

      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.

      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 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 935]]

    appropriation bill is in order as a retrenchment under this clause (Oct.
    1, 1975, p. 31058). An amendment denying the availability of funds to
    certain recipients but requiring Federal officials to make additional
    determinations as to the qualifications of recipients is legislation and
    is not a retrenchment of expenditures where it is not apparent that the
    prohibition will reduce the amounts covered by the bill (June 26, 1973,
    p. 21389).
      The reduction of expenditure must appear as a necessary result, in
    order to bring an amendment or provision within the exception to the
    rule. It is not sufficient that such reduction would probably, or would
    in the opinion of the Chair, result therefrom (IV, 3887; VII, 1530-
    1534). Thus, an amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that
    appropriations made in that act are hereby reduced by $7 billion, though
    legislative in form, was held in order under the ``Holman Rule''
    exception (Apr. 5, 1966, p. 7689), but an amendment providing for
    certain reductions of appropriations carried in the bill based on the
    President's budget estimates was held not to show a reduction on its
    face and to provide merely speculative reductions (Deschler, ch. 26,
    Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. 16110). An amendment authorizing the
    President to reduce each appropriation in the bill by not more than 10
    percent was ruled out as legislation conferring new authority on the
    President (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June 6, 1984, p. 15120). An amendment
    reducing an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a general

      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 over the
    subject matter of the amendment (VII, 1549; Dec. 16, 1911, p. 442). An
    amendment providing that appropriations ``herein and heretofore made''
    shall be reduced by $70 million through the reduction of Federal
    employees as the President determines was held to be legislative and not
    germane to the bill, because it went to funds other than those carried
    therein, and was therefore not within the ``Holman Rule'' exception
    (Oct. 18, 1966, p. 27425).

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 936]]

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

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

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

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

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

    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).

    [[Page 937]]

    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).
      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,

      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).

      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). 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).

    [[Page 938]]

    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. 1823), 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. 1971).

    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, pp. 2136, 2137), or limitation on obligations
    from a trust fund (June 26, 2012, p. 10019), or striking sections of the
    bill (Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5844 (sustained on appeal)); (2) reach back in
    the reading (Feb. 15, 2011, pp. 1965, 1966); 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. 8492), 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

    (b) Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

    Sec. 1063b. Spending reduction account.

      The  112th through
    115th and the 118th through 119th Congresses (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan.
    5, 2011, p. 80; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(d), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35; sec. 3(e). H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39;
    sec.3(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    2025, p. _) established a procedure for reducing an amount or amounts in
    a general appropriation bill and displaying the reduction in a spending
    reduction account in the bill. The procedure in the 112th through 114th
    Congresses also contained a point of order against an amendment
    increasing the level of budget authority in a general appropriation
    bill, which was codified in the 115th Congress as clause 2(g) of rule
    XXI (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38) and reestablished in the
    118th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _) after being
    repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(cc), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
    p. _). In the 115th Congress, the procedure was modified by changing the
    definition in paragraph (5) to account for the lack of an allocation
    under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (sec. 3(e).
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38). The current form of the provision is 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 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.

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

            order to consider an amendment to a spending reduction account

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

            of the Union.

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

            apply to a spending reduction account.

              (4) 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

    [[Page 939]]

            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.

              (5) 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) 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; or

                      (B) if no such allocation is in effect, ``$0''.

      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, pp. 10466, 10467) 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. 8145) was
    ineligible to avail itself of the protection of paragraph (1) to reach
    ahead to text not yet read for amendment. The Chair refused to respond
    to a hypothetical inquiry regarding the effect of a reduction in funds
    if an amendment did not address the spending reduction account (May 24,
    2016, p. _).

    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--

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

          (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.

    [[Page 940]]

      This clause was rewritten entirely in the 112th Congress (sec.
    2(d)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). 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. 1064a. Funding for aviation programs.

      Section 48114  of
    title 49 (a provision 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, 2016, 2017, and 2018 (sec. 104, P.L. 112-95; sec. 106,
    P.L. 114-55; sec. 1106, P.L. 114-190; sec. 116, P.L. 115-254)) 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 years 2014 through 2018, be equal to

                    the sum of--

                          (I) 90 percent of the estimated level of receipts

                    plus interest credited to the Airport and Airway Trust

                    Fund for that fiscal year; and

                          (II) the actual level of receipts plus interest

                    credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the

                    second preceding fiscal year minus the total amount made

                    available for obligation from the Airport and Airway

                    Trust Fund for the second preceding fiscal year.

                      (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 2018, if

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

            further authorized to be appropriated from the general fund of

            the Treasury such sums as may be necessary for the Federal

            Aviation Administration Operations account.

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

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

            resources'' means the total amount made available from the

            Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the sum of obligation

            limitations and budget authority made available for a fiscal

            year for the following budget accounts that are subject to the

            obligation limitation on contract authority provided in this

            title and for which appropriations are provided pursuant to

            authorizations contained in this title:

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

    [[Page 941]]

                      (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 2018 for Research and

            Development or Operations if the sum of the obligation

            limitation for Grants-in-Aid for Airports and the appropriation

            for Facilities and Equipment for such fiscal year is below the

            sum of the authorized levels for Grants-in-Aid for Airports and

            for Facilities and Equipment for such fiscal year.

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

    [[Page 942]]

    during pendency of that measure for amendment.

    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

      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).

      A point of order under this clause 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 amendment proposed to a Senate amendment to a House
    bill not reported from the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 1, 1980,
    pp. 28638-42) or against an item of appropriation in a reported Senate
    bill (VII, 2136, 2147; July 30, 1957, pp. 13056, 13181). If the House
    deletes a provision in a Senate bill under this clause, the bill is
    messaged to the Senate with the deletion in the form of an amendment.
    The clause 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 clause
    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 clause does not apply to a special order
    reported from the Committee on Rules ``self-executing'' the adoption in
    the House of an amendment containing an appropriation, because the
    amendment is not separately before the House during consideration of the
    special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542).

    [[Page 943]]

    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 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

      The term ``appropriation'' in the rule means the payment of funds from
    the Treasury, and the words ``warranted and make available for
    expenditure for payments'' are equivalent to ``is hereby appropriated''
    and therefore not in order (VII, 2150). The words ``available until
    expended,'' making an appropriation already made for one year available
    for ensuing years, are not in order (VII, 2145).

      The point of order provided for in this clause is not applicable to
    the following provisions: (1) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury
    to use proceeds from the sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act
    (public debt transactions) for the purpose of making loans, because such
    loans do not constitute ``appropriations'' within the purview of the
    rule (June 28, 1949, pp. 8536-38; Aug. 2, 1950, p. 11599); (2) exempting
    loan guarantees in a legislative bill from statutory limitations on
    expenditures (July 16, 1974, p. 23344); (3) authorizing the availability
    of certain loan receipts where it can be shown that the actual
    availability of those receipts remains contingent upon subsequent
    enactment of an appropriation Act (Sept. 10, 1975, p. 28300); (4)
    increasing the duties of a commission (VII, 1578); (5) authorizing
    payment from an appropriation to be made (Jan. 31, 1923, p. 2794).

      Language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an
    appropriation or a portion of an appropriation already made for one
    purpose to another (VII, 2146; Mar. 29, 1933, p. 988; Aug. 10, 1988, p.
    21719), or for one fiscal year to another (Mar. 26, 1992, p. 7223), is
    not in order. For example, the following provisions have been held out
    of order: (1) expanding the definition in existing law of recipients
    under a Federal subsidy program as permitting a new use of funds already
    appropriated (May 11, 1976, pp. 13409-11); (2) authorizing the use,
    without a subsequent appropriation, of funds directly appropriated by a
    previous statute for a new purpose (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637-40).
    However, a modification of such a provision making payments for such new
    purposes ``effective only to the extent and in such amounts as are
    provided in advance in appropriation Acts'' does not violate this clause
    (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638-42).

    [[Page 944]]

    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).
      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

    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.

    [[Page 945]]

    priation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.

      (2) For purposes of subparagraph (1), a tax or tariff measure includes
    an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general appro

      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). A technical change to subparagraph
    (2) was adopted in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(dd)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan.
    3, 2019, p. _). 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
    the 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

            that jurisdiction. Most of the questions of order arising under

            this clause since its adoption in 1983 have related to

            provisions that clearly affected the operation of the Internal

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

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

            regulatory fee levied on members of a class that occasions or

            avails itself of a particular governmental activity, typically

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

            provide guidance concerning the referral of bills, to assist

            committees in staying within their appropriate jurisdictions

            under rule X, to assist committees without jurisdiction over tax

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

            and to protect the constitutional prerogative of the House to

            originate revenue bills, the Speaker will make the following

            statement: Standing committees of the House (other than the

            Committees on Appropriations and Budget) have jurisdiction to

            consider user, regulatory and other fees, charges, and

            assessments levied on a class directly availing itself of, or

            directly subject to, a governmental service, program, or

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

            utilized solely to support, subject to annual appropriations,

            the service, program, or activity (including agency functions

            associated therewith) for which such fees, charges, and

    [[Page 946]]

            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 947]]

    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, pp. 8520, 8521).
      The adoption of subparagraph (2) in the 108th Congress established a
    different standard for determining a violation of this clause by an
    amendment to a reported general appropriation bill than for a provision
    in the appropriation bill itself. Before its adoption, a Member raising
    a point of order under this paragraph against a provision in, or an
    amendment to, a general appropriation bill affecting the use of funds
    therein (otherwise traditionally in order if admissible under clause 2
    of rule XXI), carried the burden of showing a necessary, certain, and
    inevitable change in revenue collections or tax statuses or liabilities
    (Sept. 12, 1984, pp. 25108, 25109, 25120; July 26, 1985, p. 20806; Aug.
    1, 1986, p. 18649; July 13, 1990, p. 17473; June 18, 1991, p. 15189).
    The intent of the rules change, as expressed during debate on the
    change, was ``to ease the burden on the maker of a point of order
    [against an amendment] from having to show a necessary, certain and
    inevitable change in revenue collections, tax statuses, or liability as
    previous precedents required, to one of showing a textual relationship
    between the amendment and the administration of the Internal Revenue or
    tariff laws'' (Jan. 7, 2003, p. 12). Under that standard the following
    amendments to a general appropriation bill have been held to impose a
    limitation on funds in violation of this clause: (1) 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

      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 948]]

    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 (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, pp. 17932, 17933). An amendment
    to a general

      In the 99th Congress, the following provisions in a reconciliation
    bill reported from the Committee on the Budget 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 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).

    [[Page 949]]

    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).

    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

    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 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.

    [[Page 950]]

    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, pp. 3173, 3174).
    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).

    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). It was repealed in the 116th Congress (sec.
    102(dd)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and reinstated in the 118th
    Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 5(c) of

    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.

    [[Page 951]]

    (sec. 102(dd)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and then redesignated
    as paragraph (c) in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9,
    2023, p. _). 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).

    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). It was redesignated as paragraph (b) in the
    116th Congress

    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.

     end segment .011  deg.   <> 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 legislation 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.

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

    [[Page 952]]

      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. 80). It was repealed in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(v), H. Res.
    8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) and reinstated in the 118th Congress (sec.
    2(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, 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 953]]

    Sec. 1068d. Congressional earmarks.

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

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

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

    [[Page 954]]

    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.
          (4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint resolution
    unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the

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

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

    [[Page 955]]

          (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 956]]

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

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

          (1) any revenue-losing provision that--

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

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

          (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.

      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. 15281). A gender-based reference was eliminated
    in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).

    [[Page 957]]

    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. 14834).
      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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.26), 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

      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; Mar. 21, 2010, pp.
    4096, 4102; Jan. 28, 2014, pp. 2107-09; May 21, 2014, pp. 8827-31). 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. 4105).

    Sec. 5. Publication of Limited Tariff Benefits in the House of
    Representatives and the Senate.

    Sec. 1068e. Publication of limited tariff
    benefits.

      The American   Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-159)
    requires the disclosure of a list of limited tariff benefits contained
    in a miscellaneous tariff bill as follows:

      (a) House of Representatives--

              (1) In General--The chair of the Committee on Ways and Means

            of the House of Representatives shall include a list of limited

            tariff benefits contained in a miscellaneous tariff bill in the

            report to accompany such a bill or, in a case where a

            miscellaneous tariff bill is not reported by the committee,

            shall cause such a list to be printed in the appropriate section

            of the Congressional Record.

              (2) Limited Tariff Benefit Defined.--For purposes of this

            subsection and consistent with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules

            of the House of Representatives, as in effect during the One

            Hundred Fourteenth Congress, 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.

    Sec. 7. Definitions.
                                      * * *

    [[Page 958]]

      In this Act:

                                      * * *

              (9) Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.--The term ``miscellaneous

            tariff bill'' means a bill of either House of Congress that

            contains only duty suspensions and reductions and related

            technical corrections that--

                        (A) are included in the final report of the

                    Commission submitted to the appropriate congressional

                    committees under section 3(b)(3)(E), except for--

                          (i) petitions for duty suspensions or reductions

                    that the Commission has determined do not contain the

                    information required under section 3(b)(2);

                          (ii) petitions for duty suspensions and reductions

                    with respect to which the Commission has determined the

                    petitioner is not a likely beneficiary; and

                          (iii) petitions for duty suspensions and

                    reductions that the Commission does not recommend for

                    inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill;

                        (B) are not excluded under section 3(b)(3)(F); and

                        (C) otherwise meet the applicable requirements of

    ---   <> 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--
                    this Act.

          (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.

    [[Page 959]]

    such section 250 except that such term shall also include provisions in
    appropriations 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.
      (2) For purposes 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

      (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;

          (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.

    [[Page 960]]

    caused by changes in revenue and direct spending. It was amended in the
    112th Congress to address increases in mandatory spending (sec. 2(d), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), it was amended again in the 116th Congress
    to mirror its original form with minor modifications (sec. 102(ee), H.
    Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and it was amended in the 118th Congress to
    mirror its form in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9,
    2023, 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. 920; Mar. 3, 2011, pp. 3171, 3172
    (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 10, 2011, p. 3765; Mar. 11, 2011,
    p. 3829). A point of order against a bill under this clause is not
    timely pending the question of engrossment and third reading (Mar. 30,
    2011, pp. 4715, 4716). The House in the 115th, 118th, and 119th
    Congresses provided that certain conveyances of Federal land not be
    considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues,
    increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays (sec. 3(q), H. Res.
    5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39; sec. 3(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _; sec.
    3(c)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2025, p. _).

    -  For the <> 112th,
    115th, 118th, and 119th Congresses, the House established a point of
    order against consideration of a measure increasing mandatory spending
    above a certain threshold over four 10-fiscal-year periods (sec. 3(g),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p.
    38; sec. 3(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _; sec. 3(c)(1), H. Res.
    5, Jan. 3, 2025, p. _). A similar provision has been carried in
    concurrent resolutions on the budget (e.g., sec. 3101, S. Con. Res. 11,
    114th Cong.).

    ---  Under a <> former version of clause 10 (see Sec. 1068f of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 117th Congress (H. Doc. 116-177)), 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).

      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. 12572). In its original form it addressed increases in the
    deficit or surplus

    Sec. 1068j. Availability of unreported 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 text of such measure has been
    available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for 72
    hours.

    [[Page 961]]

    amended in the 117th Congress to allow the text of unintroduced measures
    to satisfy the availability requirement (sec. 2(w), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
    2021, p. _). It applies to bills and joint resolutions only (Jan. 7,
    2011, p. 228) and includes electronic availability in consonance with
    clause 3 of rule XXIX (Mar. 17, 2011, pp. 4373, 4374). A point of order
    under this clause is not ripe until the measure in question is called up
    for consideration (Mar. 17, 2011, p. 4373).

      This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). It was amended in the 116th Congress to require
    availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p.
    _). It was further

    Sec. 1068k. Consideration of unreported measures.

        12. (a)
    It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution pursuant
    to a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules that
    has not been reported by a committee.

      (b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to a bill or joint resolution--

          (1) continuing appropriations for a fiscal year;

          (2) containing an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2) or
    section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
    of 1985;

          (3) designated pursuant to clause 7(a) of rule XV; or

          (4) not referred to committee.

      (c) Paragraph (a) does not apply before March 1 of an odd-numbered
    year.

      This clause was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(r)(2), H. Res. 8,
    Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) to codify a separate order established in the 116th
    Congress (sec. 103(i), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 117th
    Congress the House rendered this clause inapplicable until April 1 of
    the odd-numbered year in such Congress (sec. 3(u), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
    2021, p. _).

     segment .012 -- rule XXII  deg.
    [[Page 962]]

    Sec. 1068l. Former comparative print required.

        A former
    clause requiring a comparative print for certain measures was repealed
    in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). For
    its text and history, see Sec. 1068k of the House Rules and Manual for
    the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177). Prior to the 117th Congress, this
    clause consisted of a comparative print requirement for certain measures
    (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37).