Gpo Hpractice 104 5

Appropriations
I. Introductory
§ 1. In General; Constitutional Background
§ 2. Power to Originate Appropriation Bills; House and Senate Roles
§ 3. Definitions; Kinds of Appropriation Measures
§ 4. Committee and Administrative Expenses
§ 5. Authorization, Appropriation, and Budget Processes Distin-
guished
II. General Appropriation Bills

A. INTRODUCTORY
§ 6. Background; What Constitutes a General Appropriation Bill
§ 7. The Restrictions of Rule XXI Clause 2
§ 8. Committee Jurisdiction and Functions
§ 9. Duration of Appropriation
B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION
§ 10. In General; Necessity of Authorization
§ 11. Duration of Authorization
§ 12. Sufficiency of Authorization
§ 13. Proof of Authorization; Burden of Proof
§ 14. Increasing Budget Authority
C. AUTHORIZATION FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR PROGRAMS
§ 15. In General
§ 16. Agricultural Programs
§ 17. Programs Relating to Business or Commerce
§ 18. Defense Programs
§ 19. Funding for the District of Columbia
§ 20. Interior or Environmental Programs
§ 21. Programs Relating to Foreign Affairs
§ 22. Legislative Branch Funding
§ 23. Salaries and Related Benefits
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS
§ 24. In General
67
HOUSE PRACTICE
§ 25. Works in Progress

§ 26. — What Constitutes a Work in Progress
III. Legislation in General Appropriation Bills; Provisions

Changing Existing Law
A. GENERALLY
§ 28. Changing Existing Law by Amendment, Enactment, or Repeal;
Waivers
§ 29. Imposing Contingencies and Conditions
§ 30. — Conditions Requiring Reports to, or Action by, Congress
§ 31. — Conditions Imposing Additional Duties
§ 32. Language Describing, Construing, or Referring to Existing Law
§ 33. Particular Propositions as Legislation
B. CHANGING PRESCRIBED FUNDING

§ 34. In General
§ 35. Affecting Funds in Other Acts
§ 36. Transfer of Funds— Within Same Bill
§ 37. — Transfer of Previously Appropriated Funds
§ 38. Making Funds Available Prior to, or Beyond, Authorized Period
§ 39. Funds ‘‘To Remain Available Until Expended’’
§ 40. Reimbursements of Appropriated Funds
C. CHANGING EXECUTIVE DUTIES OR AUTHORITY

§ 41. In General; Requiring Duties or Determinations
§ 42. Burden of Proof
§ 43. Altering Executive Authority or Discretion
§ 44. Mandating Studies or Investigations
§ 45. Granting or Changing Contract Authority
D. THE HOLMAN RULE; RETRENCHMENTS

§ 46. In General; Retrenchment of Expenditures
§ 47. Germaneness Requirements; Application to Funds in Other Bills
§ 48. Reporting Retrenchment Provisions
§ 49. Floor Consideration; Who May Offer
68
APPROPRIATIONS
IV. Limitations on General Appropriation Bills

§ 50. In General; When in Order
§ 51. Limitations on Amount Appropriated
§ 52. Limitations on Particular Uses
§ 53. Interference With Executive Discretion
§ 54. Imposing Duties or Requiring Determinations
§ 55. — Duties Relating to Construction or Implementation of Law
§ 56. Conditional Limitations
§ 57. Exceptions to Limitations
§ 58. Limitations as to Recipients of Funds
§ 59. Limitations on Funds in Other Acts
V. Reappropriations
§ 60. In General
VI. Reporting; Consideration and Debate

A. GENERALLY
§ 61. Privileged Status; Voting
§ 62. When Bills May Be Considered
§ 63. Debate; Consideration of Amendments
§ 64. — Limitation Amendments; Retrenchments
§ 65. Points of Order— Reserving Points of Order
§ 66. — Timeliness
§ 67. — Points of Order Against Particular Provisions
§ 68. — Waiving Points of Order
§ 69. Amending Language Permitted to Remain
B. SENATE AMENDMENTS
§ 70. In General
§ 71. Authority of Conference Managers
VII. Nonprivileged Appropriation Measures

§ 72. In General; Continuing Appropriations
§ 73. Supplemental Appropriations
§ 74. Appropriations for a Single Agency
§ 75. Consideration
69
§1 HOUSE PRACTICE
VIII. Appropriations in Legislative Bills

§ 76. In General
§ 77. What Constitutes an Appropriation in a Legislative Bill
§ 78. Points of Order; Timeliness
§ 79. — Directing Points of Order Against Objectionable Language
Research References
U.S. Const. art. I § 7
U.S. Const. art. I § 9
4 Hinds §§ 3553–4018
7 Cannon §§ 1116–1720
7 Deschler Chs 25, 26
Manual §§ 143, 671a, 671b, 694c, 726, 834–848, 1007–1012
I. Introductory
§ 1. In General; Constitutional Background
The source of the congressional power to appropriate is found in the
Constitution. Article I (§ 7 clause 1) provides that no money ‘‘shall be
drawn from the Treasury’’ but in consequence of appropriations made by
law. U.S. Const. art. I § 9 clause 7. Appropriation bills are the device
through which money is permitted to be ‘‘drawn from the Treasury’’ for
expenditure. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.
This constitutional provision is construed as giving Congress broad
powers to appropriate money in the Treasury and as a strict limitation on
the authority of the executive branch to exercise this function. The Supreme
Court has recognized that Congress has a wide discretion with regard to the
details of expenditures for which it appropriates funds and has approved the
frequent practice of making general appropriations of large amounts to be
allotted and expended as directed by designated government agencies. Cin-
cinnati Soap Co. v United States, 301 US 308, 322 (1937).
§ 2. Power to Originate Appropriation Bills; House and Senate

Roles
Under the Constitution, it is exclusively the prerogative of the House
to originate ‘‘revenue’’ bills. Article I § 7 clause 1 provides:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representa-
tives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other
Bills.
The House has traditionally taken the view that this prerogative encom-
passes the sole power to originate all general appropriation bills. Deschler
70
APPROPRIATIONS §3
Ch 25 § 13. (And on more than one occasion the House has returned to the
Senate a Senate bill or joint resolution appropriating money on the ground
that it invaded the prerogatives of the House. Deschler Ch 13 §§ 20.2, 20.3.)
In 1962, when the Senate passed a joint resolution continuing funds for the
Department of Agriculture, the House passed a resolution declaring that the
Senate’s action violated Article I § 7 of the Constitution and was an in-
fringement of the privileges of the House. Deschler Ch 13 § 20.2. In support
of the view that the House has the sole power to originate appropriation
bills, it has been noted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
the phrase ‘‘raising revenue’’ was equivalent to ‘‘raising money and appro-
priating the same.’’ The Supply Bills. S. Doc. No. 872, 62d Cong. 1st Sess.
§ 3. Definitions; Kinds of Appropriation Measures

Generally
An appropriation is a provision of law that provides budget authority
for federal agencies to incur obligations. ‘‘Budget authority’’ means the au-
thority provided by law to incur financial obligations as defined by the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974, § 3(2)(A).
An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget
authority. Deschler Ch 25 § 2. It has been held that language which author-
izes the Secretary of the Treasury to use the proceeds of public-debt issues
for the purposes of making loans is not an appropriation. Deschler Ch 25
§ 4.43.
Types of Appropriation Acts

The principal types of appropriation acts are general, supplemental, spe-
cial, and continuing.
0 General appropriation bills provide budget authority to agencies, usually for
a specified fiscal year. Today, there are 13 regular appropriation acts for
each fiscal year. See § 6, infra.
0 A supplemental appropriation is an act appropriating funds in addition to
those in the 13 regular annual appropriation acts. Supplemental appro-
priations provide additional budget authority beyond the original esti-
mates for an agency or program. Such a bill may be used after the fiscal
year has begun to provide additional funding. Supplemental bills may
also be ‘‘general’’ bills within the meaning of Rules XI and XXI if cov-
ering more than one agency. See § 73, infra.
71
§4 HOUSE PRACTICE
0 A special appropriation provides funds for one government agency, pro-

gram or project. See § 74, infra.
0 Continuing appropriations—also known as continuing resolutions—provide
temporary funding for agencies or programs that have not received a reg-
ular appropriation by the start of the fiscal year. They are used to permit
agencies to continue to function and to operate their programs until their
regular appropriations become law. Continuing resolutions are usually of
short duration, but they have been used to fund agencies or departments
for an entire fiscal year. See § 72, infra.
Privileged and Nonprivileged Appropriations Distinguished
The term ‘‘general appropriation bill’’ is used to refer to those bills
which may be reported at any time and are privileged for consideration. See
§ 6, infra. A joint resolution continuing appropriations may also be reported
and called up as privileged if reported after September 15 preceding the be-
ginning of the fiscal year for which it is applicable. § 72, infra. Other con-
tinuing appropriation measures, and special appropriation bills, are not privi-
leged and are therefor considered under other procedures which give them
privilege—such as a unanimous-consent agreement, a special order reported
from the Committee on Rules, or under suspension. Deschler Ch 25 §§ 6,
7.
To file a report on a general appropriation bill, a member of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations seeks recognition and presents the report as
folows:
THE MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Appro-
priations, I submit the report on the bill making appropriations for the De-
partments of lllll for printing under the rule.
THE SPEAKER: The report is referred to the Union Calendar and ordered
printed.
§ 4. Committee and Administrative Expenses

Generally
Funding for House committees is provided by resolutions, which allo-
cate resources made available to the House in certain accounts in annual
Legislative Branch Appropriation Acts. Authorization for payment may be
obtained pursuant to House Rule XI clause 5, which provides detailed provi-
sions for the consideration of a primary expense resolution and for subse-
quent supplemental expense resolutions. With the exception of the Appro-
priations Committee, the rule applies to ‘‘any committee, commission or
other entity.’’ Manual § 732a. Generally, see COMMITTEES.
The authority of all committees to incur expenses, including travel ex-
penses, is made contingent upon adoption by the House of resolutions re-
72
APPROPRIATIONS §5
ported pursuant to this rule. See clause 1(b), Rule XI. The rule was amended
in 1977 to extend its applicability to committees and entities other than
standing committees. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.
Appropriations from accounts for salaries and other administrative ex-
penses of the House are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House
Oversight. Rule X clause 1(h). Manual § 677a. A resolution reported by that
committee providing for such an expenditure is called up as privileged. Rule
XI clause 4(a). Such a resolution, if not formally reported by the committee,
may be called up and agreed to by unanimous consent. 94–1, Jan. 23, 1975,
pp 1160, 1161.
§ 5. Authorization, Appropriation, and Budget Processes Distin-

guished
There are three phases in the complex process by which Congress allo-
cates the fiscal resources of the federal government. There is an authoriza-
tion process under which federal programs are created, amended and ex-
tended in response to national needs. There is an appropriations process
which provides funding for these programs. The congressional budget proc-
ess, which may place spending ceilings on budget authority and outlays for
a fiscal year and otherwise provides a mechanism for allocating federal re-
sources among competing government programs, interacts with and shapes
both of the other phases. The budget process is treated separately in this
work.
In the authorization phase, the legislative committees establish program
objectives and may set dollar ceilings on the amounts that may be appro-
priated. Once this authorization stage is complete for a particular program
or department, the Appropriations Committee recommends the actual level
of ‘‘budget authority,’’ which allows federal agencies to enter into obliga-
tions. Occasionally, with the consent of the House, the appropriation process
precedes the authorization phase. Special orders reported from the Commit-
tee on Rules are often utilized to expedite floor consideration of appropria-
tion bills. The House may decline to appropriate funds for particular pur-
poses, even though authorization has been enacted. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.1.
As a general rule, these two stages should be kept separate. With cer-
tain exceptions, authorization bills should not contain appropriations (§ 76,
infra), and, again with certain exceptions, appropriation bills should not con-
tain authorizations (§§ 27 et seq., infra). This general rule is complicated by
the fact that some budget authority becomes available as the result of pre-
viously enacted legislation and does not require current action by Congress.
Examples include the various trust funds for which the obligational authority
73
§6 HOUSE PRACTICE
is already provided in basic law. § 9, infra. In addition some spending,

sometimes referred to as direct spending, is controlled outside of the annual
appropriations process. It is composed of entitlement and other mandatory
spending programs. Such programs are generally funded by provisions of
the permanent laws that created them. See BUDGET PROCESS. Moreover, the
authorization for a program may be derived not from a specific law provid-
ing authority for that particular program but from more general existing
law—‘‘organic’’ law—mandating or permitting such programs. Thus, a
paragraph in a general appropriation bill purportedly containing funds not
yet specifically authorized by separate legislation was upheld where it was
shown that all of the funds in the paragraph were authorized by more gen-
eral provisions of law currently applicable to the programs in question. 95-
2, June 8, 1978, p 16778.
II. General Appropriation Bills
A. Introductory
§ 6. Background; What Constitutes a General Appropriation Bill
Today, much of the federal government is funded through the annual
enactment of 13 regular appropriations bills. The subjects of these bills are
determined by and coincide with the subcommittee jurisdictional structure
of the Committee on Appropriations. Typically the 13 regular appropriations
bills are identified as:
0 Agriculture, Rural Development and related agencies
0 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary and related agencies
0 Defense Department
0 District of Columbia
0 Energy and Water Development
0 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and related programs
0 Interior Department and related agencies
0 Labor-HHS-Education Departments and related agencies
0 Legislative Branch
0 Military Construction
0 Transportation Department and related agencies
0 Treasury, Postal Service, and general government
0 Veterans’ Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Independent Agencies
The question as to just what constitutes a general appropriations bill is
important because the rule against inclusion of substantive legislation in ap-
propriation measures (see § 27, infra) applies only to ‘‘general’’ appropria-
74
APPROPRIATIONS §7
tion bills. Deschler Ch 26 § 1.1; Manual § 835. And the requirement that
unauthorized appropriations or ‘‘legislative’’ provisions not be in order in
an appropriation bill applies only to ‘‘general’’ appropriation bills. Deschler
Ch 25 § 2. In the House, the 13 regular appropriation bills and measures
providing supplemental appropriations to two or more agencies are general
appropriations bills. Deschler Ch 25 § 6; Deschler Ch 26 § 1.3.
Measures which have been held not to constitute a general appropriation
bill include:
0 A joint resolution continuing appropriations for government agencies pend-
ing enactment of the regular appropriation bills. Deschler Ch 26 § 1.2.
0 A joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for one agency.
Deschler Ch 25 § 7.4.
0 A joint resolution making an appropriation to a department for a specific
purpose. 92–1, Aug. 4, 1971, p 29384.
0 Bills providing special appropriations for specific purposes. 8 Cannon
§ 2285.
0 A joint resolution providing an appropriation for a single government agen-
cy and permitting transfer of a portion of those funds to another agency.
96–1, Oct. 25, 1979, pp 29627, 29628.
0 A joint resolution reported from the Committee on Appropriations transfer-
ring appropriated funds from one agency to another. 96–2, Mar. 26,
1980, pp 6716, 6717.
0 A joint resolution transferring unobligated balances to the President to be
available for specified purposes but containing no new budget authority.
100–2, Mar. 3, 1988, pp 3235–39.
0 A bill making supplemental appropriation for emergency construction of
public works. 7 Cannon § 1122.

Generally
Rule XXI clause 2 contains two restrictions relative to appropriations
bills: it (1) prohibits the inclusion in general appropriation bills of ‘‘unau-
thorized’’ appropriations, except for works-in-progress, and (2) prohibits
provisions ‘‘changing existing law’’—usually referred to as ‘‘legislation on
an appropriation bill’’—except for provisions that retrench expenditures
under certain conditions, and except for rescissions of amounts provided in
appropriation acts reported by the Appropriations Committee. Manual § 834.
The ‘‘retrenchment’’ provision is known as the Holman rule, and is dis-
cussed in § 46, infra.
In practice, the concepts ‘‘unauthorized appropriations’’ and ‘‘legisla-
tion on general appropriation bills’’ sometimes have been applied almost
interchangeably as grounds for making points of order pursuant to Rule XXI
75
§8 HOUSE PRACTICE
clause 2. This occurs because an appropriation made without prior authoriza-

tion has, in a sense, the effect of legislation, particularly in view of rulings
of long standing (§ 28, infra) that a ‘‘proposition changing existing law’’
may be construed to include the enactment of a law where none exists.
Deschler Ch 26 § 1. The two concepts are treated separately in this article,
however, because they derive from different paragraphs of clause 2, Rule
XXI and constitute distinct restrictions on the authority of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Enforcement of Rule
As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require consideration
in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the enforcement of the rule must
ordinarily occur during consideration in Committee of the Whole, where the
Chair, on the raising of a point of order, may rule out any portion of the
bill in conflict with the rule. 4 Hinds § 3811; Manual § 835. Because por-
tions of the bill thus stricken are not reported back to the House, clause 8,
Rule XXI was added in the 104th Congress to empower the Committee of
the Whole to strike offending provisions without Members needing to re-
serve points of order in the House. The enforcement of the rule also occurs
in the House, since a motion to recommit a general appropriation bill may
not propose an amendment in violation of the rule. Deschler Ch 26 § 1.4;
101–1, Aug. 1, 1989, p 17159; 101–1, Aug. 3, 1989, p 18546. It should
be stressed, however, that the House may, through various procedural de-
vices, waive one or both requirements of the rule, and thereby preclude the
raising of such points of order against provisions in the bill. § 68, infra.
§ 8. Committee Jurisdiction and Functions

Generally
Today, under Rule X clause 1 the House Committee on Appropriations
has jurisdiction over all appropriations, including general appropriation bills.
Manual § 671b. And special Presidential messages on rescissions and defer-
rals of budget authority submitted pursuant to § 1012 and § 1013 of the Im-
poundment Control Act of 1974, as well as rescission bills as defined in
§ 1011, are referred to the Committee on Appropriations if the proposed re-
scissions or deferrals involve funds already appropriated or obligated. Man-
ual § 671b. Impoundments generally, see BUDGET PROCESS.
Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the committee was given
jurisdiction over rescissions of appropriations, transfers of unexpended bal-
ances, and the amount of new spending authority to be effective for a fiscal
year. See Rule X clause 1(b). Manual § 671b.
76
APPROPRIATIONS §9
Committee Reports
A report from the Appropriations Committee accompanying any general
appropriation bill must contain a concise statement describing fully the ef-
fect of any provision of the accompanying bill which directly or indirectly
changes the application of existing law. Rule XXI clause 3. Manual § 844b.
Provisions in the bill which are described in the report as changing existing
law are presumed to be legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of Rule XXI,
absent rebuttal by the committee. 98–2, May 31, 1984, p 14591. The rules
further require that such reports contain a list of appropriations in the bill
for expenditures not previously authorized by law. Rule XXI clause 3, as
amended in 1995.
§ 9. Duration of Appropriation
Annual Appropriations
The most common form of appropriation provides budget authority for
a single fiscal year. All of the 13 regular appropriations bills, for example,
are annual, although certain accounts may ‘‘remain available until ex-
pended.’’ Where a bill provides budget authority for a single fiscal year, the
funds have to be obligated during the fiscal year for which they are pro-
vided; they lapse if not obligated by the end of that year. Indeed, unless
an act provides that a particular fund shall be available beyond the fiscal
year, appropriations are made for one year only and any unused funds auto-
matically go back into the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year.
Norcross v U.S., 1958, 142 Ct.Cl. 763.
An appropriation in a regular appropriation law may be construed to be
permanent or available continuously only if the appropriation expressly pro-
vides that it is available after the fiscal year covered by the law in which
it appears, or unless the appropriation is for certain purposes such as public
buildings. 31 USC § 1301.
The fiscal year for the federal government begins on October 1 and
ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year
in which it ends.
Multi-year Appropriations
A multi-year appropriation is made when budget authority is provided
in an appropriations act that is available for a specified period of time in
excess of one fiscal year.
77
§ 10 HOUSE PRACTICE
Permanent Appropriations
A permanent appropriation is budget authority that becomes available
as the result of previously-enacted legislation and which does not require
current action by Congress. Examples include the appropriations for com-
pensation of Members of Congress (Pub. L. No. 97–51, § 130(c)), and the
various trust funds for which the obligational authority is already provided
in basic law. Appropriations, Budget Estimates, Etc., S. Doc. No. 100–23,
pp 2329, 2366.
B. Authorization of Appropriation
§ 10. In General; Necessity of Authorization
Generally
The current House rule prohibits the inclusion in general appropriation
bills of ‘‘unauthorized’’ appropriations, except for ‘‘public works and ob-
jects’’ already under way. Rule XXI clause 2(a). Manual § 834. Thus, any
Member may make a point of order on the House floor to prevent consider-
ation of an unauthorized appropriation (§ 67, infra), although the House fre-
quently waives the enforcement of the rule (§ 68, infra).
Authorization to Precede Appropriation
The enactment of authorizing legislation must occur prior to, and not
following, the consideration of an appropriation for the proposed purpose.
Thus, delaying the availability of an appropriation pending enactment of an
authorization will not protect that appropriation against a point of order.
Deschler Ch 26 § 7.3. A bill may not permit a portion of a lump sum—
unauthorized at the time the bill is being considered—to subsequently be-
come available; a further appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing
legislation would be needed. Deschler Ch 25 § 2. Likewise an appropriation
will not be permitted which is conditioned on a future authorization.
Deschler Ch 26 §§ 7.2, 47.4. But where lump sums are involved, language
which limits use of an appropriation to programs ‘‘authorized by law’’ or
which permits expenditures ‘‘within the limits of the amount now or here-
after authorized to be appropriated,’’ has been held to insulate the bill
against the point of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 7.10 (note).
The requirement that the authorization precede the appropriation is sat-
isfied if the authorizing legislation has been enacted into law between the
time the appropriation bill is reported and the time it is considered in the
Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.21.
78
APPROPRIATIONS § 12
It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ‘‘general’’ appropriation

bills. A joint resolution containing continuing appropriations is not consid-
ered a general appropriation bill within the purview of the rule, despite in-
clusion of diverse appropriations which are not ‘‘continuing’’ in nature.
Deschler Ch 25 § 2.
§ 11. Duration of Authorization

Generally; Renewals
Until recent years, many authorizations were permanent, being provided
for by the organic statute that created the agency or program. Such statutes
often include provisions to the effect that there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated ‘‘hereafter’’ such sums ‘‘as may be necessary’’ or ‘‘as ap-
proved by Congress,’’ to implement the law, thereby requiring the appro-
priate budget authority to be enacted each year in accordance with this per-
manent authorization. See, for example, Deschler Ch 26 § 11.1.
Today, the House more commonly authorizes appropriations for only a
certain number of years at a time. Authorizations may extend for two, five,
or 10 years, and they may be renewed periodically. The trend toward peri-
odic authorizations is reflected in the House rule adopted in 1970 which re-
quires that each standing committee insure that appropriations for continuing
programs and activities will be made annually ‘‘to the maximum extent fea-
sible,’’ consistently with the nature of the programs involved. And programs
for which appropriations are not made annually may have ‘‘sunset’’ provi-
sions which require that they be reviewed periodically to determine whether
they can be modified to permit annual appropriations. Rule X clause 4(f).
Manual § 699a.
§ 12. Sufficiency of Authorization

Generally
The term ‘‘authorized by law’’ in Rule XXI clause 2 (Manual § 834)
is ordinarily construed to mean a ‘‘law enacted by the Congress;’’ statutory
authority for the appropriation must exist. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.3. It has been
held, for example, that a bill passed by both Houses but not signed by the
President nor returned to the originating House is insufficient authorization
to support an appropriation. 92–1, May 11, 1971, p 14471. Similarly, an ex-
ecutive order does not constitute sufficient authorization in the absence of
proof of its derivation from a statute enacted by Congress. Deschler Ch 26
§ 7.7. On the other hand, sufficient ‘‘authorization’’ for an appropriation
may be found to exist in a treaty (Deschler Ch 26 § 17.9) that has been rati-
79
fied by both parties (4 Hinds § 3587), or in legislation contained in a pre-

vious appropriation act which has become permanent law (Deschler Ch 25
§ 2.5).
Authorization From Specific Statutes or General Existing Law

Authorization for a program may be derived from a specific law provid-
ing authority for that particular program or from a more general existing
law—‘‘organic law’’—authorizing appropriations for such programs. Thus,
a paragraph in a general appropriation bill purportedly containing funds not
yet specifically authorized by separate legislation was held not to violate
Rule XXI clause 2, where it was shown that all of the funds in the para-
graph were authorized by more general provisions of law currently applica-
ble to the programs in question. 95–2, June 8, 1978, p 16778.
Similarly, 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. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.6. The legislative
history of the law in question may be considered to determine whether suffi-
cient authorization for the project exists. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.7. The omission
to appropriate during a series of years for a program previously authorized
by law does not repeal the law, and it may be cited as providing authoriza-
tion for a subsequent appropriation. 4 Hinds § 3595.
Some statutes expressly provide, however, that there may be appro-
priated to carry out the functions of certain agencies only such sums as Con-
gress may thereafter authorize by law, thus requiring specific subsequently
enacted authorizations for the operations of such agencies and not permitting
appropriations to be authorized by the ‘‘organic statute’’ creating the agen-
cy. (See, for example, 15 USC § 1024(e), establishing the Joint Economic
Committee and authorizing the appropriation of ‘‘such sums as may be nec-
essary during each fiscal year.’’ See Deschler Ch 26 § 49.2 (note)).
Effect of Prior Unauthorized Appropriations

An appropriation for an object unauthorized by law, however frequently
made in former years, does not warrant similar appropriations in succeeding
years (7 Cannon § 1150), unless the program in question is such as to fall
into the category of a continuation of work-in-progress (§ 25, infra), or un-
less authorizing legislation in a previous appropriation act has become per-
manent law. Manual § 836.
80
Incidental Expenses; Implied Authorizations

A general grant of authority to an agency or program may be found
sufficiently broad to authorize items or projects that are incidental to carry-
ing out the purposes of the basic law. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.10. An amend-
ment proposing appropriations for incidental expenses which contribute to
the main purpose of carrying out the functions of the department for which
funds are being provided in the bill is generally held to be authorized by
law. Deschler Ch 26 § 7.15. For example, appropriations for certain travel
expenses for the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture were held au-
thorized by law as necessary to carry out the basic law setting up that De-
partment. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.10.
On the other hand, where the authorizing law authorizes a lump-sum
appropriation and confers broad discretion on an executive in allotting
funds, an appropriation for a specific purpose may be ruled out as inconsist-
ent therewith. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.5 (note). The appropriation of a lump
sum for a general purpose having been authorized, a specific appropriation
for a particular item included in such general purpose may be a limitation
on the discretion of the executive charged with allotment of the lump sum
and not in order on the appropriation bill. 7 Cannon § 1452. Such a limita-
tion may also be ruled out on the ground that it is ‘‘legislation’’ on an ap-
propriation bill. § 43, infra. An appropriation to pay a judgment awarded by
a court is in order if such judgment has been properly certified to Congress.
§ 13. Proof of Authorization; Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof Generally
Under House practice, those upholding an item of appropriation have
the burden of showing the law authorizing it. 4 Hinds § 3597; 7 Cannon
§§ 1179, 1276. Thus, a point of order having been raised, the burden of
proving the authorization for language carried in an appropriation bill falls
on the proponents and managers of the bill (Deschler Ch 26 § 9.4), who
must shoulder this burden of proof by citing statutory authority for the ap-
propriation. Deschler Ch 25 § 9.5. The Chair may overrule a point of order
upon citation to an organic statute creating an agency, absent any showing
that such law has been amended or repealed to require specific annual au-
thorizations. Deschler Ch 26 § 9.6.
Burden of Proof as to Amendment
The burden of proof to show that an appropriation contained in an
amendment is authorized by law is on the proponent of the amendment, a
81
point of order having been raised against the appropriation. Deschler Ch 26

§§ 9.1, 9.2; 102–1, Oct. 29, 1991, p ll. If the amendment is susceptible
to more than one interpretation, it is incumbent upon the proponent to show
that it is not in violation of the rule. Manual § 835.
Evidence of Compliance With Condition

An authorizing statute may provide that the authorization for a program
is to be effective only upon compliance by executive officials with certain
conditions or requirements. In such a case, a letter written by an executive
officer charged with the duty of furthering a certain program may be suffi-
cient documentary evidence of authorization in the manner prescribed.
Deschler Ch 26 §§ 10.2, 10.3.
§ 14. Increasing Budget Authority

Increases Within Authorized Limits
Authorizing legislation may place a ceiling on the amount of budget au-
thority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appro-
priation of ‘‘such sums as are necessary.’’ Absent restrictions imposed by
the budget process, it is in order to increase the appropriation in an appro-
priation bill for a purpose authorized by law if such increase does not ex-
ceed the amount authorized for that purpose. Deschler Ch 25 §§ 2.13, 2.15.
An amendment proposing simply to increase an appropriation for a specific
purpose over the amount carried in the appropriation bill does not constitute
a change in law unless such increase is in excess of that authorized.
Deschler Ch 25 § 2.14. An amendment changing the figure in the bill to the
full amount authorized is in order. Deschler Ch 25 § 2.16. Of course, if the
authorization does not place a cap on the amount to be appropriated, an
amendment increasing the amount of the appropriation for items included
in the bill is in order. Deschler Ch 25 § 11.16.
Increases in Excess of Amount Authorized

An appropriation in excess of the specific amount authorized by law
may be in violation of the rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations (Rule
XXI clause 2). Deschler Ch 26 § 21. Thus, where existing law limited an-
nual authorizations of appropriations for incidental expenses of a program
to $7,500, an appropriation for $10,000 was held to be unauthorized and
was ruled out on a point of order. 94–1, Sept. 30, 1974, p 30981.
82
The rule that an appropriation bill may not provide budget authority in
excess of the amount specified in the authorizing legislation has also been
applied to:
0 An amendment proposing an increase in the amount of an appropriation au-
thorized by law for compensation of Members of the House. Deschler
Ch 26 § 21.2.
0 A provision in an appropriation bill increasing the loan authorization for
the rural telephone program above the amount authorized for that pur-
pose. Deschler Ch 26 § 33.3.
0 Language in an appropriation bill providing funds for the Joint Committee
on Defense Production in excess of the amount authorized by law. 88–
2, Apr. 10, 1964, p 7640.
0 A paragraph in a general appropriation bill containing funds in excess of
amounts permitted to be committed by a federal agency for mortgage
purchases. 97–2, July 29, 1982, p 18636.
Waiver of Ceiling
Where a limitation on the amount of an appropriation to be annually
available for expenditure by an agency has become law, language in an ap-
propriation bill seeking to waive or change this limitation gives rise to a
point of order that the language is legislation on an appropriation bill.
C. Authorization for Particular Purposes or Programs

§ 15. In General
Absent an appropriate waiver, language in a general appropriation bill
providing funding for a program that is not authorized by law is in violation
of Rule XXI clause 2(a) and may also ‘‘change existing law’’ in violation
of clauses 2(b) or 2(c). See 98–2, May 31, 1984, p 14590. Provisions that
have been ruled out as unauthorized under Rule XXI clause 2 have in-
cluded:
0 Appropriations for fiscal 1979 for the Department of Justice and its related
agencies. Deschler Ch 26 § 18.3.
0 An appropriation for expenses incident to the special instruction and train-
ing of United States attorneys and United States marshals, their assistants
and deputies, and United States commissioners. Deschler Ch 26 § 18.1.
0 Paragraphs containing funds for a fiscal year for Coast Guard acquisitions,
construction, research, development, and evaluation. 95–1, June 8, 1977,
pp 17945, 17946.
0 An appropriation for the U.S. Customs Service air interdiction program.
98–2, June 21, 1984, pp 17693, 17694.
83
0 An appropriation for liquidation of contract authority to pay costs of certain

subsidies granted by the Maritime Administration. 92–1, June 24, 1971,
p 21901.
0 Language permitting the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to use funds for official reception and representa-
tion expenses. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.19.
0 Language making funds available for distribution of radiological instru-
ments and detection devices to states by loan or grant for civil defense
purposes. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.1.
0 Language making funds available for reimbursements of Government em-
ployees for use by them of their privately owned automobiles on official
business. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.6.
0 An appropriation for the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission.
91–2, May 19, 1970, p 16165.
The rulings cited in this division are intended to illustrate the applica-
tion of the rule requiring appropriations to be based on prior authorization.
No attempt has been made to indicate whether measures similar to those
ruled upon, if offered today, would in fact be authorized under present laws.
§ 16. Agricultural Programs

Held Authorized by Existing Law
0 An appropriation to be used to increase domestic consumption of farm
commodities. Deschler Ch 26 § 11.1.
0 Appropriations for cooperative range improvements (including construction,
maintenance, control of rodents, and eradication of noxious plants in na-
tional forests). Deschler Ch 26 § 11.3.
0 An appropriation to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the
provisions of the National School Lunch Act of 1946. Deschler Ch 26
§ 11.5.
0 Appropriations for the acquisition and diffusion of information by the Agri-
culture Department. 4 Hinds § 3649; Deschler Ch 26 § 11.10.
0 Appropriations for agricultural engineering research and for programs relat-
ing to the prevention and control of dust explosions and fires during the
harvesting and storing of agricultural products. Deschler Ch 26 § 11.11.
0 An appropriation for the purchase and installation of weather instruments
and the construction or repair of buildings of the Weather Bureau.
Ruled Out as Unauthorized
0 Language providing funds for a celebration of the centennial of the estab-
lishment of the Department of Agriculture. Deschler Ch 26 § 11.2.
0 The organization of a new bureau to conduct investigations relating to agri-
culture. 4 Hinds § 3651.
0 Language providing for cooperation by and with state agriculture investiga-
tors. 4 Hinds § 3650; 7 Cannon §§ 1301, 1302.
84
0 A section providing funds to collect, compile, and analyze data relating to

consumer expenditures and savings. Deschler Ch 26 § 11.7.
0 An appropriation to permit the Department of Agriculture to investigate and
develop methods for the manufacture and utilization of starches from cull
potatoes and surplus crops. Deschler Ch 26 § 11.9.
0 A provision for the refund of certain penalties to wheat producers. Deschler
Ch 26 § 11.6.
0 An amendment appropriating funds for the immediate acquisition of domes-
tic meat and poultry to be distributed consistently with provisions of law
relating to distribution of other foods. 93–2, June 21, 1974, p 20620.
0 An appropriation for the control of certain crop diseases or infestations.
Deschler Ch 26 §§ 11.12, 11.13.
§ 17. Programs Relating to Business or Commerce

0 An appropriation for the Director of the Bureau of the Census to publish
monthly reports on coffee stocks on hand in the United States. Deschler
Ch 26 § 12.1.
0 An appropriation for the office of the Secretary of Commerce for expenses
of attendance at meetings of organizations concerned with the work of
his office. Deschler Ch 26 § 12.6.
0 An appropriation for sample surveys by the Census Bureau to estimate the
size and characteristics of the nation’s labor force and population.
0 Language providing appropriations for necessary expenses in the perform-
ance of activities and services relating to technological development as
an aid to business in the development of foreign and domestic com-
merce. Deschler Ch 26 § 12.4.
0 Language appropriating funds for travel in privately owned automobiles by
employees engaged in the maintenance and operation of remotely con-
trolled air-navigation facilities. Deschler Ch 26 § 12.5.
0 Funds for necessary expenses of the National Bureau of Standards (includ-
ing amounts for the standard reference data program) for fiscal 1979.
85
§ 18. Defense Programs

0 Funds for paving of streets and erection of warehouses incident to the es-
tablishment of a naval station. 7 Cannon § 1232.
0 Appropriations to enable the President, through such departments or agen-
cies of the government as he might designate, to carry out the provisions
of the Act of Mar. 11, 1941, to promote the defense of the United States.

0 Funds for transportation of successful candidates to the Naval Academy. 7
Cannon § 1234.
0 Funds for establishment of shooting ranges and purchase of prizes and tro-
phies. 7 Cannon § 1242.
0 An appropriation for the construction and improvement of barracks for en-
listed men and quarters for noncommissioned officers of the Army.
0 An amendment striking out funds for a nuclear aircraft carrier program and
inserting funds for a conventional-powered aircraft carrier program.
0 A provision increasing the funds appropriated for a fiscal year for military
assistance to South Vietnam and Laos. 93–2, Apr. 10, 1974, p 10594.
0 Language including funds for Veterans’ Administration expenses for the is-
suance of memorial certificates to families of deceased veterans.
§ 19. Funding for the District of Columbia

Held Authorized Under Existing Law
0 An appropriation for opening, widening, or extending streets and highways
in the District of Columbia. 7 Cannon § 1189.
0 An appropriation for street lights or for improving streets out of a special
fund created by the District of Columbia Gasoline Tax Act. Deschler Ch
26 §§ 11.15, 14.7.
0 An appropriation for expenses of keeping school playgrounds open during
the summer months. Deschler Ch 26 § 14.5.
0 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and specifications for a
branch library building in the District of Columbia. Deschler Ch 26
§ 14.13.
86

0 Appropriations for certain federal office buildings in the District of Colum-
bia that were not approved by the Public Works Committees of the
House and Senate as required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959. 86–
2, Apr. 19, 1960, p 8230.
0 A paragraph permitting the use of funds by the Office of the Corporation
Counsel to retain professional experts at rates fixed by the commissioner.
0 An appropriation for the preparation of plans and specifications for a new
main library building in the District of Columbia. Deschler Ch 26
§ 14.12.
0 An appropriation for the salary and expenses of the office of Director of
Vehicles and Traffic out of the District Gasoline Tax Fund. Deschler Ch
26 § 14.14.
0 Language permitting the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to pur-
chase a municipal asphalt plant. Deschler Ch 26 § 14.19.
0 An amendment making funds available for expenditure by the American
Legion in connection with its national convention. Deschler Ch 26
§ 14.3.
0 An appropriation to reimburse certain District of Columbia officials for
services and expenses. 7 Cannon § 1184.
§ 20. Interior or Environmental Programs

Held Authorized Under Existing Law
0 An appropriation for suppression of liquor or peyote traffic among Indians.
7 Cannon §§ 1210, 1212.
0 An appropriation for the examination of mineral resources of the national
domain. 7 Cannon § 1222.
0 An appropriation for the development of an educational program of the Na-
tional Park Service. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.17.
0 Language providing an appropriation for the purpose of encouraging indus-
try and self-support among Indians and outlining areas of discretionary
authority to be exercised by the Secretary of the Interior. Deschler Ch
26 § 15.26.
0 Appropriations for irrigation projects which had been recommended by the
Secretary of the Interior and approved by the President. Deschler Ch 26
§ 15.30.
0 A paragraph containing funds to enable the EPA to obtain reports as to the
probable adverse effect on the economy of certain federal environmental
actions. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.1.
0 A paragraph making funds available to the EPA to establish an independent
review board to review the priorities of the agency. Deschler Ch 26
§ 15.2.
87
0 Language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, in administering the Bu-

reau of Reclamation, to contract for medical services for employees and
to make certain payroll deductions. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.9.
0 An appropriation for the Division of Investigations in the Department of
the Interior, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary, to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character. Deschler Ch 26
§ 15.12.
0 Language appropriating funds ‘‘out of the general funds of the Treasury’’
(and not the reclamation fund) for investigations of proposed federal rec-
lamation projects. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.28.
0 Language requiring that part of an appropriation for general wildlife con-
servation be earmarked expressly for the leasing and management of land
for the protection of the Florida Key deer. Deschler Ch 26 § 15.5.
0 Appropriations for the National Power Policy Committee to be used by the
committee in the performance of functions prescribed by the President.
§ 21. Programs Relating to Foreign Affairs

0 An appropriation for transportation and subsistence of diplomatic and con-
sular officers en route to and from their posts. 7 Cannon § 1251.
0 A provision earmarking an amount for a contribution to the International
Secretariat on Middle Level Manpower. Deschler Ch 26 § 17.2.
0 An appropriation for the obligation assumed by the United States in accept-
ing membership in the International Labor Organization. Deschler Ch 26
§ 17.3.
0 An amendment providing funds for a health exhibit at the Universal and
International Exhibition of Brussels. Deschler Ch 26 § 17.6.
0 An appropriation for commercial attachés to be appointed by the Secretary
of Commerce. 7 Cannon § 1257.
0 An appropriation to compensate the owners of certain vessels seized by Ec-
uador. Deschler Ch 26 § 17.1.

0 An amendment to earmark part of the appropriation for the USIA to pro-
vide facilities for the translation and publication of books and other print-
ed matter in various foreign languages. Deschler Ch 26 § 17.7.
0 Appropriations for incidental and contingent expenses in the consular and
diplomatic service. 4 Hinds § 3609.
0 An appropriation for the Foreign Service Auxiliary. Deschler Ch 26
§ 17.14.
88
0 An appropriation for the salary of a particular U.S. minister to a foreign

country where the Senate had not confirmed the appointee. Deschler Ch
26 § 17.17.
0 An amendment providing funds for acquisition of sites and buildings for
embassies in foreign countries. 4 Hinds § 3606.
§ 22. Legislative Branch Funding

It is not in order to provide in an appropriation bill for payments to
employees of the House unless the House by prior action has authorized
such payments. 4 Hinds § 3654. Such authorization is generally provided for
by resolution from the Committee on House Oversight (formerly House Ad-
ministration). The House in appropriating for an employee may not go be-
yond the terms of the resolution creating the office. 4 Hinds § 3659.
A resolution of the House has been held sufficient authorization for an
appropriation for the salary of an employee of the House (4 Hinds §§ 3656–
3658) even though on one occasion the resolution may have been agreed
to only by a preceding House (4 Hinds § 3660). A resolution intended to
justify appropriations beyond the term of a Congress is ‘‘made permanent
law’’ by a legislative provision in a Legislative Branch Appropriation Act.
Held Authorized
0 Funds for employment of counsel to represent Members and to appear in
court officially. 7 Cannon § 1311.
0 Funds for expenses incurred in contested election cases when properly cer-
tified. 7 Cannon § 1231.
0 Salaries for certain House employees. 91–1, Aug. 5, 1969, p 22197.
0 An increase in the salary of an officer of the House. 89–2, Sept. 8, 1966,
p 22020.
0 The salary of the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Reve-
nue Taxation. 92–2, Oct. 4, 1972, p 33744.
0 Salary adjustments for certain House employees. 92–2, Jan. 27, 1972, p
1531.
0 Overtime compensation for employees of the Publications Distribution
Service (Folding Room). 92–2, Mar. 2, 1972, p 6627.
0 Costs of stenographic services and transcripts in connection with a meeting
or hearing of a committee. Manual § 703c. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.
0 Certain costs associated with the organizational meeting of the Democratic
Caucus or Republican Conference. Manual § 997. 2 USC § 29a.
0 The transfer of surplus prior-year funds to liquidate certain current obliga-
tions of the House. Deschler Ch 25 § 5.3.
89

0 An amendment proposing to increase the total amount for salaries of Mem-
bers beyond that authorized. Deschler Ch 26 § 21.2.
0 Language providing an allowance payable to the attending physician of the
Capitol. 86–2, May 17, 1960, p 10447.
0 An amendment providing funds for a parking lot for the use of Members
and employees of Congress. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.3.
0 An appropriation for employment by the Committee on Appropriations of
50 qualified persons to investigate and report on the progress of certain
contracts let by the United States. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.2.
§ 23. Salaries and Related Benefits

Language in a general appropriation bill providing funding for salaries
that are not authorized by law is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(a). 98–
2, May 31, 1984, p 14589. Such propositions, whether to appropriate for
salaries not established by law or to increase salaries fixed by law, are out
of order. 4 Hinds §§ 3664–3667, 3676–3679. The mere appropriation for a
salary for one year does not create an office so as to justify appropriations
in succeeding years. 4 Hinds §§ 3590, 3697. However, it has been held that
a point of order does not lie against a lump-sum appropriation for increased
pay costs as being unauthorized where language in the bill limits use of the
appropriation to pay costs ‘‘authorized by or pursuant to law.’’ Deschler Ch
25 § 2.20.
0 Language providing for positions of employment in certain grades, in addi-
tion to the number authorized in existing law. 86–1, May 11, 1959, p
7904.
0 Language providing funds for the hire of one other person in excess of the
number authorized by law. 87–2, Apr. 2, 1962, p 5932.
0 A paragraph containing funds for personal services for the President ‘‘with-
out regard to provisions of law’’ regulating government employment and
for entertainment expenses to be accounted for solely on the certificate
of the President. 93–1, Aug. 1, 1973, pp 27286, 27287.
0 A paragraph permitting the use of funds by the D.C. Office of the Corpora-
tion Counsel to retain professional experts at rates fixed by the commis-
sioner. 93–1, June 18, 1973, p 20068.
0 A paragraph authorizing an executive official to establish salary levels of
certain other officials. 97–2, Sept. 30, 1982, pp 26290, 26291.
0 A provision appropriating necessary expenses for a designated number of
officers on the active list of an agency. 98–2, May 31, 1984, p 14590.
0 An appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Commission on Civil
Rights above the amount authorized by existing law for that purpose. 92–
1, June 24, 1971, p 21902.
90
0 An amendment appropriating funds for salaries and expenses of additional

inspectors in the U.S. Customs Service. 98–2, Aug. 1, 1984, pp 21904,
21905.
0 An amendment providing for a salary of $10,000 per year for the wife of
the President for maintaining the White House. Deschler Ch 26 § 20.13.
D. Authorization for Public Works

§ 24. In General
Language in a general appropriation bill providing funding for a public
work that is not authorized by law is in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(a)
(Deschler Ch 26 § 19.13), unless the project can be deemed ‘‘work in
progress’’ within the meaning of that rule (§ 25, infra). An appropriation for
a public work in excess of the amount fixed by law (4 Hinds §§ 3583, 3584;
7 Cannon § 1133), or for extending a public service beyond the limits as-
signed by an executive officer exercising a lawful discretion (4 Hinds
§ 3598), is out of order.
0 An appropriation for necessary advisory services to public and private
agencies with regard to construction and operation of airports and land-
ing areas. Deschler Ch 26 § 19.4.
0 An amendment proposing to increase a lump-sum appropriation for river
and harbor projects. Deschler Ch 26 § 19.6.
0 An appropriation for the Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway. Deschler
Ch 26 § 19.9.
0 An appropriation for construction of transmission lines from Grand Coulee
Dam to Spokane. Deschler Ch 25 § 19.11.
0 Language providing an additional amount for construction of certain public
buildings. Deschler Ch 26 § 19.1.
0 Appropriations for certain federal office buildings in the District of Colum-
bia where not approved by the Public Works Committees of the House
and Senate as required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959. Deschler
Ch 26 § 19.2.
0 An appropriation for construction of a connecting highway between the
United States and Alaska. Deschler Ch 26 § 19.5.
0 An amendment making part of an appropriation to the Army Corps of En-
gineers for flood control available for studying specified work of the Bu-
reau of Reclamation. Deschler Ch 26 § 19.8.
0 Language appropriating certain trust funds for expenses relating to forest
roads and trails. Deschler Ch 26 § 28.2.
91
§ 25. Works in Progress

The House rule which bars appropriations not previously authorized by
law provides for an exception for appropriations for ‘‘public works and ob-
jects’’ which are already in progress. Rule XXI clause 2(a). Manual § 834.
Thus, when the construction of a public building has commenced and there
is no limit of cost, further appropriations may be made under the exception
for works in progress. Deschler Ch 26 § 8.1. The exception for works in
progress under Rule XXI may apply even though the original appropriation
for the project was unauthorized. 7 Cannon § 1340; Deschler Ch 26 § 8.2.
Historically, the ‘‘works in progress’’ exception has been applied only
to projects funded from the general fund of the Treasury for which no au-
thorization has been enacted; it does not apply to language changing existing
law by extending the authorized availability of funds or in contravention of
law restricting use of a special fund. 103–1, Sept. 22, 1993, p ll. An
appropriation for construction which is in violation of existing law or which
exceeds the limit fixed by law is not permitted under the work-in-progress
exception of Rule XXI. 4 Hinds §§ 3587, 3702; 7 Cannon § 1332; Manual
§ 839.
The tendency of later decisions is to narrow the application of the ex-
ception under Rule XXI clause 2(a) making in order appropriations for
‘‘works in progress.’’ 7 Cannon § 1333. The work in question, to qualify
under the rule, must have moved beyond the planning stage. 7 Cannon
§ 1336. To come within the terms of the rule, it must be actually ‘‘in
progress,’’ according to the usual significance of those words (4 Hinds
§ 3706), with actual work having been initiated (Deschler Ch 26 § 8.5);
merely selecting or purchasing a site for the construction of a building is
not sufficient (4 Hinds §§ 3762, 3785). But the fact that the work has been
interrupted—even for several years—does not prevent it from qualifying
under the work-in-progress exception of clause 2(a). 4 Hinds §§ 3707, 3708.
To establish that actual work has begun on the project, the Chair may
require some documentary evidence that work has been initiated. Deschler
Ch 26 § 8.5. To this end, the Chair may consider a letter from an executive
officer charged with the duty of constructing the project. Deschler Ch 26
§ 8.2. News articles merely suggesting that work may have begun have been
regarded as insufficient evidence that work is in progress within the mean-
ing of the rule. Deschler Ch 26 § 8.7.
§ 26. — What Constitutes a Work in Progress

The ‘‘works and objects’’ referred to in the exception to the rule pro-
hibiting unauthorized appropriations is construed to mean something tan-
92
gible, such as a building or road; the term does not contemplate work that
is indefinite or intangible, such as an investigation. 4 Hinds §§ 3714, 3715,
3719. See also Deschler Ch 26 § 8. The term does not extend to projects
that are indefinite as to completion and intangible in nature, such as the
gauging of streams. 4 Hinds §§ 3714, 3715. Nor does the term extend to
the ordinary duties of an executive or administrative office. 4 Hinds
§§ 3709, 3713.
Appropriations for extension or repair of an existing road (4 Hinds
§§ 3793, 3798), bridge (4 Hinds § 3803), or public building have been ad-
mitted as in continuation of a work (4 Hinds §§ 3777, 3778), although it
is not in order as such to provide for a new building in place of one de-
stroyed (4 Hinds § 3606). The purchase of adjoining land for a work already
established has been admitted under this principle (4 Hinds §§ 3766–3773),
as well as additions to or extensions of existing public buildings (4 Hinds
§§ 3774, 3775). But the purchase of a separate and detached lot of land is
not admitted (4 Hinds § 3776).
Appropriations for new buildings as additional structures at Government
institutions have sometimes been admitted (4 Hinds §§ 3741–3750), but
propositions to appropriate for new buildings that were not necessary ad-
juncts to the institution have been ruled out (4 Hinds §§ 3755–3759).
Projects that have qualified as a ‘‘work or object . . . in progress’’
under Rule XXI clause 2(a) have included:
0 A topographical survey. 7 Cannon § 1382.
0 The continuation of construction at the Kennedy Library, a project owned
by the United States and funded by a prior year’s appropriation. 100–
2, June 14, 1988, p 14335.
0 A continuation of aircraft experimentation and development. Jan. 22, 1926,
p 2623.
Projects that have been ruled out as a ‘‘work or object . . . in
progress’’ under Rule XXI clause 2(a) have included:
0 New Army hospitals. 4 Hinds § 3740.
0 A new lighthouse. 4 Hinds § 3728.
0 An extension of an existing road. 103–1, Sept. 22, 1993, p ll.
93
III. Legislation in General Appropriation Bills; Provisions

Changing Existing Law
A. Generally
In General; Historical Background
The House rules have contained language forbidding the inclusion in
general appropriation bills of language ‘‘changing existing law’’ almost con-
tinuously since the 44th Congress. In 1835, when it became apparent that
appropriation bills were being delayed because of the intrusion of legislative
matters, John Quincy Adams suggested the desirability of a plan that such
bills ‘‘be stripped of everything but the appropriations.’’ 4 Hinds § 3578.
Today, House Rule XXI provides that, with two exceptions, ‘‘[n]o pro-
vision changing existing law shall be reported in any general appropriation
bill . . .’’ (clause 2(b)), and that ‘‘[n]o amendment to a general appropria-
tion bill shall be in order if changing existing law.’’ Clause 2(c). The excep-
tions set forth in clause 2(b) are for germane provisions which change exist-
ing law in a way that would ‘‘retrench’’ expenditures (see § 46, infra), and
for rescissions of previously enacted appropriations. Manual § 834.
Language changing existing law in violation of Rule XXI is often re-
ferred to as ‘‘legislation on an appropriation bill.’’ Deschler Ch 26 § 1.
What ‘‘legislation’’ means in this context is a change in an existing law that
governs how appropriations may be used.
Like the rule generally prohibiting unauthorized appropriations, the re-
striction against legislating on general appropriations bills is only enforced
if a Member takes the initiative to enforce it by raising a point of order.
§ 67, infra. And such a point of order may be waived pursuant to various
procedural devices. See § 68, infra.
The rule against legislation in appropriation bills is limited to general
appropriation bills; thus, a joint resolution merely continuing appropriations
for government agencies pending enactment of the regular appropriation
bills is not subject to the clause 2 Rule XXI prohibitions against legislative
language. 90–1, Sept. 21, 1967, p 26370.
Construction of Rule
The rule that forbids language in a general appropriation bill which
changes existing law is strictly construed. Deschler Ch 26 § 64.23. The re-
striction is construed to apply not only to changes in an existing statute, but
also to the enactment of law where none exists, to language repealing exist-
94
ing law (§ 28, infra), to a provision making changes in court interpretations

of statutory law (96–2, Aug. 19, 1980, p 21978) and to a proposition to
change a rule of the House (4 Hinds § 3819). The fact that legislative lan-
guage may have been included in appropriation acts in prior years and made
applicable to funds in those laws does not permit the inclusion in a general
appropriation bill of similar language. 98–1, Sept. 22, 1983, pp 25403,
25406, 25407.
The Rule XXI restrictions as to changing existing law apply specifically
to amendments to general appropriation bills. See clause 2(a). Manual § 834.
It follows that if a motion to recommit with instructions constitutes legisla-
tion on an appropriation bill, the motion is subject to a point of order.
Burden of Proof
Where a point of order is raised against a provision in a general appro-
priation bill as constituting legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2,
the burden of proof is on the Committee on Appropriations to show that
the language is valid under the precedents and does not change existing law.
Deschler Ch 26 § 22.30. Provisions in the bill, described in the accompany-
ing report as directly or indirectly changing the application of existing law,
are presumably legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2, in the absence
of rebuttal by the committee. Deschler Ch 26 § 22.27. Similarly, the pro-
ponent of an amendment against which a point of order has been raised and
documented as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill has the bur-
den of proving that the amendment does not change existing law. Deschler
Ch 26 § 22.29.
§ 28. Changing Existing Law by Amendment, Enactment, or Re-

peal; Waivers
The provision of the rule (Rule XXI clause 2) forbidding in any general
appropriation bill a ‘‘provision changing existing law’’ is construed to mean:
0 A change in the text of existing law. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 23.11, 24.6.
Note: Existing law may be repeated verbatim in an appro-
priation bill (4 Hinds § 3414) but the slightest change of
the text causes it to be ruled out (4 Hinds § 3817; 7 Can-
non §§ 1391, 1394).
0 The enactment of law where none exists.
Note: The provision of the rule forbidding legislation in
any general appropriation bill is construed to mean the
enactment of law where none exists (4 Hinds §§ 3812,
3813), such as permitting funds to remain available until
expended or beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill
95
(93–1, Aug. 1, 1973, pp 27288, 27289), or immediately

upon enactment (100–2, June 28, 1988, p 16254), where
existing law permits no such availability.
0 The repeal of existing law. 7 Cannon § 1403; Deschler Ch 26 §§ 24.1, 24.7.
0 A waiver of a provision of existing law. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 24.5, 34.14,
34.15.
Note: A waiver may be regarded as legislation on an ap-
propriation bill where it uses such language as ‘‘notwith-
standing the provisions of any other law’’ (Deschler Ch
26 § 26.6) or ‘‘without regard to [sections of] the Revised
Statutes’’ (Deschler Ch 26 § 24.8).
§ 29. Imposing Contingencies and Conditions

Generally; Conditions Precedent
Provisions making an appropriation contingent on a future event are
often presented in appropriation bills. Such contingencies may be phrased
as conditions to be complied with, as in ‘‘funds shall be available when the
Secretary has reported,’’ or as restrictions on funding, as in ‘‘No funds until
the Secretary has reported.’’ Similar tests are applied in both formulations
in determining whether the language constitutes legislation on an appropria-
tion bill: Is the contingency germane or does it change existing law?
Deschler Ch 26 § 49.2. Does it impose new duties (e.g. to report) where
none exist under law? See § 31, infra.
Precedents in this discussion (§§ 29–31, infra) could in many instances
be cited under the discussion on ‘‘Limitations’’ (§§ 50–59, infra). Language
imposing a ‘‘negative restriction’’ is not a proper limitation and is indeed
‘‘legislation,’’ if it creates new law and requires positive determinations and
actions where none exist in law. § 56, infra.
The proscription against changing existing law is applicable to those in-
stances in which the whole appropriation is made contingent upon an event
or circumstance as well as those in which the disbursement to a particular
participant is conditioned on the occurrence of an event. Deschler Ch 26
§§ 47, 48. The terms ‘‘unless,’’ ‘‘until,’’ or ‘‘provided,’’ in an amendment
or proviso are clues that the language may contain a condition that is subject
96
under Rule XXI clause 2(b) or (c) to a point of order. Language that has
been ruled out pursuant to this rule has included:
0 An amendment providing that funds shall not be available for any broadcast
of information about the U.S. until the radio script for such broadcast
has been approved by the Daughters of the American Revolution.
0 An amendment to require, as a condition to the availability of funds, the
imposition of standards of quality or performance. Deschler Ch 26
§ 59.1.
0 Language providing that none of the funds should be used unless certain
procurement contracts were awarded on a formally advertised basis to the
lowest responsible bidder. Deschler Ch 26 § 23.14.
0 An amendment making the money available on certain contingencies which
would change the lawful mode of payment. Deschler Ch 26 § 48.1.
0 An amendment denying the obligation or expenditure of certain funds un-
less such funds were subject to audit by the Comptroller General.
Deschler Ch 26 § 47.8. (A subsequent amendment which denied the use
of funds not subject to audit ‘‘as provided by law’’ was offered and
adopted.)
0 Language making certain funds for an airport available for an access road
(a federal project) provided Virginia makes available the balance of
funds necessary for the construction of the road. Deschler Ch 26 § 48.7.
0 Language providing that no part of the appropriation for certain range im-
provements shall be expended in any national forest until contributions
at least equal to such expenditures are made available by local public
or private sources. Deschler Ch 26 § 48.6.
0 Language stating that no part of the funds shall be used ‘‘unless and until’’
approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Deschler Ch 26
§ 48.3.
0 A proviso that no funds shall be available for certain expenditures unless
made in accordance with a budget approved by the Public Housing Com-
missioner. Deschler Ch 26 § 48.4.
0 An amendment specifying that no funds made available may be expended
until total governmental tax receipts exceed total expenditures. Deschler
Ch 26 § 48.11.
0 An amendment containing certification requirements and mandating certain
contractual provisions as a condition to the receipt of funds. 100–2, May
18, 1988, p 11388.
§ 30. — Conditions Requiring Reports to, or Action by, Congress

Reporting to Congress as a Condition
It is legislation on a general appropriation bill in violation of clause 2,
Rule XXI to require the submission of reports to a committee of Congress
where existing law does not require that submission. 99–2, Aug. 1, 1986,
p 18647. Thus, an amendment to a general appropriation bill precluding the
97
availability of funds therein unless agencies submit reports to the Committee

on Appropriations—reports not required to be made by existing law—con-
stitutes legislation in violation of that rule. 98–1, Nov. 2, 1983, p 30496;
99–1, July 25, 1985, pp 20806, 20807.
Congressional Action as Condition
Under the more recent precedents, it is not in order by way of amend-
ment to make the availability of funds in a general appropriation bill contin-
gent upon subsequent congressional action. Manual § 842b. Compare 90–2,
June 11, 1968, p 16692; 96–1, Sept. 6, 1979, pp 23360, 23361. Such a con-
dition changes existing law if its effect is to require a subsequent authoriza-
tion which, when enacted, will automatically make funds available for ex-
penditure without further appropriations. Such a result is contrary to the
process contemplated in Rule XXI whereby appropriations are dependent on
prior authorization. Deschler Ch 26 § 49.2 (note). Language making the
availability of funds contingent upon the enactment of authorizing legislation
raises a presumption that the appropriation is then unauthorized. 98–1, Sept.
19, 1983, pp 24640, 24641. Indeed, a conditional appropriation based on en-
actment of authorization is a concession on the face of the language that
no prior authorization exists. Deschler Ch 26 § 47.3 (note).
It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to direct the activities
of a committee (102–2, June 24, 1992, p ll), such as to require it to pro-
mulgate regulations to limit the use of an appropriation (96–1, June 13,
1979, pp 14670, 14671). And an amendment to a general appropriation bill
including language to direct the budget scorekeeping for amounts appro-
priated was held to constitute legislation and was ruled out of order under
clause 2 of Rule XXI. 103–1, May 26, 1993, p ll.
Other conditions relative to congressional action that have been ruled
out as legislation include:
0 An amendment providing that no part of the funds in the bill shall be used
for the enforcement of any order restricting sale of any article or com-
modity unless such order shall have been approved by a concurrent reso-
lution of the Congress. Deschler Ch 26 § 49.2.
0 Language requiring that certain contracts be authorized by the appropriate
legislative committees and in amounts specified by the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House. Deschler Ch 26 § 49.5.
0 An amendment making the availability of funds in the bill contingent upon
subsequent enactment of legislation containing specified findings. 98–1,
Nov. 2, 1983, p 30503.
0 An amendment changing a permanent appropriation in existing law to re-
strict its availability until all general appropriation bills are presented to
the President. 100–1, June 29, 1987, p 18082.
98
§ 31. — Conditions Imposing Additional Duties

Where a condition in an appropriation bill or amendment thereto seeks
to impose on a federal official substantial duties that are different from or
in addition to those already contemplated in law, the provision may be ruled
out as legislative in nature. Thus, while it is in order on a general appropria-
tion bill to prohibit the availability of funds therein for a certain activity,
that prohibition may not be made contingent upon the performance of a new
affirmative duty on the part of a federal official. Deschler Ch 26 § 50. Other
provisions that have been ruled out under this rule have included:
0 An amendment providing that no part of the money appropriated shall be
paid to any state unless and until the Secretary of Agriculture is satisfied
that such state has complied with certain conditions. Deschler Ch 26
§ 50.2.
0 Language providing that no part of a certain appropriation shall be avail-
able until it is determined by the Secretary of the Interior that authoriza-
tion therefor has been approved by the Congress. Deschler Ch 26 § 50.3.
0 An amendment providing that none of the money appropriated shall be paid
to persons in a certain category unless hereafter appointed or reappointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Deschler Ch 26 § 50.4.
0 A paragraph prohibiting the use of funds to pay for services performed
abroad under contract ‘‘unless the President shall have promulgated’’
certain security regulations. Deschler Ch 26 § 50.5.
0 An amendment providing that no part of the appropriation shall be used
for land acquisition for airport access roads until the FAA shall have
held public hearings. Deschler Ch 26 § 50.6.
0 An amendment rendering an appropriation for energy conservation services
contingent upon recommendations by federal officials. Deschler Ch 26
§ 50.7.
0 Language making the availability of certain funds contingent on legal deter-
minations to be made by a federal court and an executive department.
100–2, June 28, 1988, p 16261.
§ 32. Language Describing, Construing, or Referring to Existing

Law
Generally
It is in order in a general appropriation bill to include language descrip-
tive of authority provided in law so long as the description is precise and
does not change that authority in any respect. Deschler Ch 26 § 23.1. But
language in an appropriation bill construing or interpreting existing law, al-
though cast in the form of a limitation, is legislation and not in order.
Deschler Ch 26 § 24. Likewise, an amendment which does not limit or re-
strict the use or expenditure of funds in the bill, but which directs the way
99
in which provisions in the bill must be interpreted or construed, is legisla-

tion. Deschler Ch 26 § 25.15; 100–2, May 17, 1988, p 11305. The rationale
underlying this rule is that a provision proposing to construe existing law
is in itself a proposition of legislation and therefore not in order. 4 Hinds
§§ 3936–3938; Manual § 842c. Language in a general appropriation bill
which has been ruled out pursuant to this rule has included:
0 Language broadening beyond existing law the definition of services to be
funded by an appropriation. Deschler Ch 26 § 25.8.
0 A provision defining certain expenses as ‘‘nonadministrative,’’ for purposes
of making a computation. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 22.13, 25.4.
0 A provision making appropriations available for purchase of station wagons
‘‘without such vehicles being considered as passenger motor vehicles.’’
0 An amendment construing certain language so as to permit the withholding
of funds for specific military construction projects upon a determination
that elimination of such projects would not adversely affect national de-
fense. Deschler Ch 26 § 25.9.
0 An amendment providing that nothing in the Act shall restrict the authority
of the Secretary of Education to carry out the provisions of title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 96–2, Aug. 27, 1980, p 23535.
0 A statement in the bill that a limitation on funds therein is to be considered
a prohibition against payments to certain parties in administrative pro-
ceedings. 100–2, May 17, 1988, p 11305.
0 A provision directing the Selective Service Administration to issue regula-
tions to bring its classifications into conformance with a Supreme Court
decision. 101–1, July 20, 1989, p 15405.
0 An amendment which expresses the sense of Congress that reductions in
appropriations in other bills should reflect the proportionate reductions
made in the pending bill. 101–2, Oct. 21, 1990, p ll.
Incorporation by Reference to Existing Law
An amendment to a general appropriation bill which incorporates by
reference the provisions of an existing law may be subject to a point of
order. 88–1, Oct. 10, 1963, pp 19258–60. Thus, in 1976, a paragraph in a
bill containing funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be avail-
able ‘‘in accordance with the provisions of titles VI and VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964’’ was ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI
clause 2, where it could not be shown that the corporation was already sub-
100
ject to the provisions of that law. 94–2, June 24, 1976, pp 20414, 20415.
Other provisions ruled out for the same reason have included:
0 Language referring to conditions imposed on certain programs in other ap-
propriation acts and making those conditions applicable to the funds
being appropriated in the bill under consideration. Deschler Ch 26 § 22.6.
0 Language in a general appropriation bill prescribing that the provisions of
a House-passed resolution ‘‘shall be the permanent law with respect
thereto.’’ Deschler Ch 26 § 22.7.
§ 33. Particular Propositions as Legislation

The rule (Rule XXI clause 2) that a proposition in a general appropria-
tion bill may not change existing law has been applied to a wide variety
of proposals. A sampling of these provisions, classified by subject matter,
are set out below.
Provisions Relating to Agriculture
0 An amendment curtailing the use of funds for price support payments to
certain persons and defining the term ‘‘person’’ to mean an individual,
partnership, firm, joint stock company, or the like. Deschler Ch 26
§ 39.10.
0 An amendment providing that certain loans be exclusively for the construc-
tion and operation of generating facilities for furnishing electric energy
to persons in certain rural areas. Deschler Ch 26 § 39.5.
0 A proviso that certain land banks shall be examined once a year instead
of at least twice as provided by law, and changing the law with reference
to salaries of employees engaged in such examinations. Deschler Ch 26
§ 39.9.
Provisions Relating to Commerce
0 A paragraph carrying an appropriation for all expenses of the Bureau of
the Census necessary to collect, compile, analyze, and publish a sample
census of business. Deschler Ch 26 § 40.5.
0 Language providing that functions necessary to the compilation of foreign
trade statistics be performed in New York instead of Washington, D.C.
101
Provisions Relating to Foreign Affairs

0 A paragraph expressing the sense of the Congress concerning the represen-
tation of the Chinese government in the United Nations. Deschler Ch 26
§ 41.4.
0 An amendment providing that ‘‘a reasonable amount’’ of the funds pro-
vided to the Organization of American States may be available for dis-
tribution in certain underdeveloped areas in the United States. Deschler
Ch 26 § 41.9.
0 An amendment stating the sense of Congress that any new Panama Canal
treaty must not abrogate or vitiate the ‘‘traditional interpretation’’ of past
Panama Canal treaties, with special reference to territorial sovereignty.
Provisions Relating to Federal Employment
0 A provision changing the compensation received by government employees
under the law. 4 Hinds §§ 3871, 3881.
0 A proposition to increase the number of employees fixed by law. 7 Cannon
§ 1456; Deschler Ch 26 § 43.13.
0 Language authorizing a change in the manner of appointment of clerks. 4
Hinds § 3880.
0 A provision permitting an executive official to delegate to an administratie
officer the authority to make appointments of certain personnel. Deschler
Ch 26 § 45.5.
0 Language authorizing the Secretary of Defense to adjust the wages of cer-
tain civilian employees. 100–2, June 21, 1988, p 15450.
0 A provision making it a felony for a member of an organization of govern-
ment employees that asserts the right to strike against the government
to accept salary or wages paid from funds contained in the pending bill.
0 Language providing that the Secretary of State may, in his discretion, ter-
minate the employment of an employee whenever he shall deem such
termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.
0 Language exempting persons appointed to part-time employment as mem-
bers of a civil service loyalty board from application of certain statutes.
Provisions Relating to Congressional Employment and Compensation
0 Provisions increasing or providing additional salary to Members of Con-
gress. Deschler Ch 26 § 44.1, 44.2.
0 Language increasing the Members’ telegraph, stationery, and telephone al-
lowances. Deschler Ch 26 § 44.7.
0 An amendment requiring a committee to promulgate rules to limit the
amount of official mail sent by Members. Deschler Ch 26 § 44.10.
0 An amendment providing that the clerk-hire roll of each Member be in-
creased by one employee. Deschler Ch 26 § 44.3.
102
0 An amendment proposing that each Member may pay to a clerk-hire em-

ployee $8,000 in lieu of $6,000 as basic compensation. Deschler Ch 26
§ 44.5.
0 An amendment changing the procedure for the employment of committee
staff personnel. Deschler Ch 26 § 44.9.
Provisions Relating to Housing and Public Works Programs
0 A provision restricting the contract authority of the Housing and Home Fi-
nance Administrator to an amount ‘‘within the limits of appropriations
made available therefor.’’ Deschler Ch 26 § 45.3.
0 Language prohibiting occupancy of certain housing by persons belonging
to organizations designated as subversive and requiring such prohibition
to be enforced by local housing authorities. Deschler Ch 26 § 45.1.
0 An appropriation for the construction of buildings for storage of certain
equipment and including a stated limit of cost for construction of any
such building. Deschler Ch 26 § 45.7.
0 A proposition to create ‘‘necessary and special facilities’’ for transporting
the mails on railroads. 4 Hinds § 3804.
B. Changing Prescribed Funding

§ 34. In General
Generally; Mandating Expenditures
Language in a general appropriation bill is permitted where it is drafted
simply as a negative restriction or limitation on the use of funds. § 50, infra.
Such limitations may negatively affect the allocation of funds as con-
templated in existing law, but may not explicitly change statutory directions
for distribution. Deschler Ch 26 § 77.2. It is in violation of clause 2 of Rule
XXI to include language in a general appropriation bill directing that funds
therein be obligated or distributed in a manner that is contrary to existing
law. 97–2, July 29, 1982, p 18637; 98–1, Oct. 5, 1983, p 27335. Language
directing that funds in the bill shall be distributed ‘‘without regard to the
provisions’’ of the authorizing legislation is subject to a point of order.
While the Appropriations Committee may report a limitation on the
availability of funds within the reported bill, a limitation on the obligation
of funds, or a removal of an existing statutory limitation on the obligation
of funds contained in existing law, is legislation and in violation of clause
2 of Rule XXI. 103–1, Sept. 23, 1993, p ll.
If existing law places a limit or cap on the total amount that may be
spent on a program, language in a general appropriation bill may not direct
an increase in that amount. 4 Hinds §§ 3865–3867. Similarly, a provision
103
making available indefinite sums for a particular program may be ruled out
as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 where existing law provides
that a definite amount must be specified for that purpose in annual appro-
priation bills. Deschler Ch 26 § 33.1. Where mandatory funding levels have
been earmarked for certain programs by existing law, a provision in a gen-
eral appropriation bill rendering them ineffective may be ruled out as in vio-
lation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. Deschler Ch 26 § 36.5. In 1982, a paragraph
in a general appropriation bill directing that ‘‘not less’’ than a specified sum
be available for a certain purpose was ruled out as legislation constituting
a direction to spend a minimum amount and not a negative limitation. 97–
2, July 29, 1982, p 18623. An amendment to a general appropriation bill
denying funds therein for a program at less than a certain amount constitutes
legislation where existing law confers upon a federal official discretionary
authority to determine minimum levels of expenditures. 95–2, July 20, 1978,
p 21856. Language mandating a certain allotment of funds at ‘‘the maxi-
mum amounts authorized’’ has also been ruled out as legislation on an ap-
propriation bill. Deschler Ch 26 § 36.2.
Language in a general appropriation bill may not authorize the adjust-
ment of wages of government employees (101–1, Apr. 26, 1989, p 7525)
or permit an increase in Members’ office allowances only ‘‘if requested in
writing’’ (101–2, Oct. 21, 1990, p ll). Nor may it mandate reductions
in various appropriations by a variable percentage calculated in relation to
‘‘overhead.’’ 102–2, June 24, 1992, p ll.
Change in Source or Method of Funding
Where existing law authorizes appropriations out of a special fund for
a particular purpose, it is not in order in an appropriation bill to direct that
the money be taken from the general funds of the Treasury for that purpose.
Deschler Ch 26 §§ 35.1, 35.2. Thus, language in a bill providing funds for
an agricultural project, for which funding had been authorized from the re-
ceipts of timber sales and not from appropriated funds, was ruled out as leg-
islation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 § 35.3. The lan-
guage in an appropriation bill appropriating funds in the Federal Aid High-
way Trust Fund for expenses of forest roads and trails was held to be legis-
lation and not in order where no authorization existed for the expenditure
from the Highway Trust Fund for those proposed purposes. 86–2, Feb. 9,
1960, p 2348.
Language in a general appropriation bill that substitutes borrowing au-
thority in lieu of a direct appropriation is subject to a point of order if con-
trary to existing law. Deschler Ch 26 § 35.4.
104
Changing Allotment Formulas; Setting Priorities

A provision in a general appropriation bill which changes the legislative
formula governing the allotment of funds to recipients is legislation on an
appropriation bill in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26
§ 36.10; 101–1, Aug. 2, 1989, p 18123; Manual § 842e. It is not in order
in a general appropriation bill to establish priorities to be followed in the
obligation or expenditure of the funds where such priorities are not found
in existing law. Thus, a proviso specifying that an appropriation for veter-
ans’ job training be obligated on the basis of those veterans unemployed the
longest time was conceded to be legislation where existing law did not re-
quire that allocation of funds, and was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI
clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 § 36.17.
Where existing law establishes priorities to be followed by an executive
official in the distribution of funds, an amendment to an appropriation bill
requiring that those funds be distributed in accordance with such priorities
may under some circumstances be regarded as constituting a stronger man-
date as to the use of those funds and ruled out as a modification of the au-
thorizing law, and therefore out of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 23.8.
§ 35. Affecting Funds in Other Acts

Generally
Language in a general appropriation bill which is applicable to funds
appropriated in another act may constitute legislation under Rule XXI clause
2. 86–1, June 29, 1959, p 12132. Thus, an amendment to an appropriation
bill seeking to change a limitation on a previous appropriation bill may be
held to be legislation and not in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 27.26.
Rescissions
Although under clause 2(b) of Rule XXI the Committee on Appropria-
tions may report in a general appropriation bill ‘‘rescissions of appropria-
tions contained in appropriation Acts,’’ under clause 2(c) of Rule XXI an
amendment to a general appropriation bill may not change existing law, as
by rescinding an appropriation contained in another Act.
§ 36. Transfer of Funds— Within Same Bill

Transfers of appropriations within the confines of the same bill are nor-
mally considered in order on a general appropriation bill if not containing
legislative language. Deschler Ch 26 § 29; 86–1, Mar. 24, 1959, p 5102.
Thus, a general provision in an appropriation bill permitting transfers of
sums appropriated therein from one subhead to another in that enactment
105
was held not to constitute legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 29.5. Likewise, a

provision in an appropriation bill may permit certain funds to be available
‘‘interchangeably’’ for expenditure for various authorized purposes. Deschler
Ch 26 § 29.8. And an amendment providing that a particular authorized
project should be financed out of ‘‘any available unallocated funds con-
tained in this act’’ was held to be in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 29.10. Such
a provision may not include legislative language, however; in one instance,
for example, language in a general appropriation bill authorizing the Sec-
retary of Labor to allot or transfer, with the approval of the Director of the
Budget, funds in the bill to an office within the Labor Department, was held
to be legislation because it imposed additional duties on the Director of the
Budget. Deschler Ch 26 § 29.1.
Language in a bill containing funds for an agency for certain activities
and permitting transfers of those funds to other departments to carry out
those activities (where existing law authorized appropriations only to the
agency) has been ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch
26 § 30.22. And a paragraph in a bill providing for transfers from the appro-
priation therein to ‘‘any department or agency’’ was ruled out in violation
of Rule XXI clause 2 as constituting legislation on an appropriation bill.
§ 37. — Transfer of Previously Appropriated Funds

Language in an appropriation bill which is applicable to funds appro-
priated in another act constitutes legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause
2(b) (Deschler Ch 26 § 30.10), and may also constitute a reappropriation of
unexpended balances in violation of clause 6 (Deschler Ch 26 § 30.20). Re-
appropriations generally, see § 60, infra. Thus, an amendment to an appro-
priation bill proposing the transfer of funds previously appropriated in an-
other appropriation bill is legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 30.1. A point of
order will lie against language that attempts to transfer such funds from one
department to another. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 30.16, 30.25.
§ 38. Making Funds Available Prior to, or Beyond, Authorized Pe-

riod
Generally; Availability of Balances
It is provided by statute that the balance of an appropriation limited for
obligation to a definite period is available only for payment of expenses
properly incurred during the period of availability or to complete contracts
properly made within that period of availability. 31 USC § 1502. And it is
not in order in a general appropriation bill to provide that funds therein are
106
to be available beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill unless the author-
izing law permits that availability. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 32.1, 32.10. Such lan-
guage is held to ‘‘change existing law’’ in violation of Rule XXI clause 2
because it extends the use of the funds beyond the period permitted by law.
By statute, an appropriation in a regular, annual appropriation law may
be construed to be permanent or available continuously only if the appro-
priation expressly provides that it is available after the fiscal year covered
by the law, or unless the appropriation is for certain purposes, such as pub-
lic buildings. 31 USC § 1301. Amounts appropriated to construct public
buildings remain available until completion of the work. When a building
is completed and outstanding liabilities for the construction are paid, bal-
ances remaining revert immediately to the Treasury. 31 USC § 1307.
Provisions in appropriation bills that have been ruled out under Rule
XXI clause 2 on a point of order have included:
0 Language providing funds to collect and publish certain statistics on voting,
to be available until the end of the next fiscal year. Deschler Ch 26
§ 32.6.
0 Language making fees and royalties collected pursuant to law available be-
yond the current fiscal year. Deschler Ch 26 § 32.9.
0 Language making an appropriation for a census available beyond the time
for which it was originally authorized. Deschler Ch 26 § 22.2.
0 Language making appropriations for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
for the current year ‘‘and each fiscal year thereafter’’ from the sale of
stamps. Deschler Ch 26 § 32.8.
0 Language providing for funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority to be
available for the payment of obligations chargeable against prior appro-
priations. Deschler Ch 26 § 32.16.
Funds ‘‘To Be Immediately Available’’
Language in an appropriation bill that the funds shall be immediately
available—that is, prior to the start of the fiscal year covered by the bill—
is subject to a point of order. A prior ruling permitting immediate availabil-
ity, that is, prior to the start of the fiscal year covered by the bill (7 Cannon
§§ 1119, 1120) has been superseded by more recent rulings proscribing such
immediate availability. 99–2, July 29, 1986, p ll; 100–2, June 28, 1988,
p ll. Making funds available in an earlier fiscal period may also have
Budget Act implications. Under the Budget Act, a measure containing a new
entitlement is subject to a point of order (see § 401(b)(1)) unless the entitle-
ment (as defined by the Act) is to take effect after the start of the appro-
priate fiscal year. See, for example, 99–2, June 26, 1986, p 15729. See
BUDGET PROCESS.
107
§ 39. Funds ‘‘To Remain Available Until Expended’’

Generally
Authorization bills sometimes provide that appropriated funds are ‘‘to
remain available until expended.’’ Such language is permitted where exist-
ing law authorizes the inclusion of language extending the availability of
funds for the purpose stated in that law. 99–1, June 11, 1985, p 15174. Con-
versely, where the authorizing statute does not permit funds to remain avail-
able until expended or without regard to fiscal year limitation, the inclusion
of such availability in a general appropriation bill has been held to constitute
legislation in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 32.1, 32.2,
32.10. 99–1, June 6, 1985, p 14610. However, language that certain funds
be ‘‘available until expended’’ may be included where other existing law
can be interpreted to permit that availability. Thus, a provision in a general
appropriation bill that funds therein for the construction of the west front
of the U.S. Capitol shall ‘‘remain available until expended’’ was held not
to constitute legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 where an existing
law (31 USC § 1307) provided that funds for public building construction
shall remain available until the completion of the work. Deschler Ch 26
§ 32.1.
Authority of Appropriations Committee to Confine Expenditure to

Current Fiscal Year
While authorizing legislation sometimes provides that funds authorized
therein shall ‘‘remain available until expended,’’ the Committee on Appro-
priations has never been required, when appropriating for those purposes, to
specify that such funds must remain available until expended. Indeed, the
Appropriations Committee often confines the availability of funds to the cur-
rent fiscal year, regardless of the limit of availability contained in the au-
thorization, and it may do so absent a clear showing that the language in
question was intended to require appropriations to be made available until
expended. Deschler Ch 26 § 32.21.
§ 40. Reimbursements of Appropriated Funds

If not authorized by existing law, language in a general appropriation
bill providing for the use of funds generated from reimbursement, repay-
ment, or refund, rather than from a direct appropriation, may be ruled out
as legislation under Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 38.1 et seq. Pro-
108
visions in appropriation bills ruled out under this rule have included require-
ments:
0 That ‘‘all refunds, repayments, or other credits on account of funds dis-
bursed under this head shall be credited to the appropriation.’’ Deschler
Ch 26 § 38.1.
0 That appropriations contained in the Act may be reimbursed from the pro-
ceeds of sales of certain material and supplies. Deschler Ch 26 § 38.2.
0 That any part of the appropriation for salaries and expenses be reimbursed
from commissary earnings. Deschler Ch 26 § 38.4.
0 That repayment of federal appropriations for a certain airport be made from
income derived from operations. Deschler Ch 26 § 38.10.
0 That money received by the United States in connection with any irrigation
project constructed by the federal government shall be covered into the
general fund until such fund has been reimbursed. Deschler Ch 26
§ 38.11.
0 That receipts from nonfederal agencies representing reimbursement for trav-
el expenses of certain employees performing advisory functions to such
agencies be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation.
0 That certain advances be reimbursable during a fixed period under rules
and regulations prescribed by an executive officer. Deschler Ch 26
§ 38.14.
C. Changing Executive Duties or Authority

§ 41. In General; Requiring Duties or Determinations
Generally
Where an amendment to or language in a general appropriation bill ex-
plicitly places new duties on officers of the government or implicitly re-
quires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or make judgments
and determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes
the character of legislation under Rule XXI clause 2 and is subject to a
point of order. 4 Hinds §§ 3854–3859; Deschler Ch 26 § 52; 91–1, July 31,
1969, pp 21653, 21675; Manual § 842d. The extra duties which may invali-
date an amendment as being ‘‘legislation’’ are duties not now required by
law. The fact that they may be presently in effect on a voluntary basis does
not protect an amendment from a point of order under clause 2 Rule XXI.
Deschler Ch 26 § 63.7 (note). The point of order will lie against language
requiring new determinations by federal officials whether or not state offi-
cials administering the federal funds in question routinely make such deter-
minations. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.33. Thus, in a general appropriation bill, if
109
not already mandated by existing law, an executive official may not be re-
quired:
0 To make substantial findings in determining the extent of availability of
funds. 97–2, Dec. 9, 1982, pp 29690, 29691.
0 To make evaluations of propriety and effectiveness. 97–1, Oct. 6, 1981, p
23361; 100–2, May 25, 1988, pp 12270–72.
0 To include information in the annual budget on transfers of appropriations.
0 To make determinations, in implementing a personnel reduction program,
as to which individual employees shall be retained. Deschler Ch 26
§ 22.17.
0 To implement certain conditions and formulas in determining amounts to
be charged as rent for public housing units. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.20.
Approval or Certification Duties
Where existing law authorizes the availability of funds for certain ex-
penses when certified by an executive official, language in a general appro-
priation bill containing funds for that purpose to be accounted for solely
upon his certificate may be held in order as not constituting a change in
existing law. 93–2, June 18, 1974, pp 19715, 19716. And appropriations for
traveling expenses at meetings ‘‘considered necessary’’ in the exercise of
the agency’s discretion for the efficient discharge of its responsibilities were
held authorized by a law permitting inclusion of such language in the bill.
Deschler Ch 26 § 52.28. But language in a general appropriation bill author-
izing the expenditure of funds on the approval of an executive official and
on his ‘‘certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes’’ was held
to change existing law and was ruled out in violation of Rule XXI clause
2 when the Committee on Appropriations failed to cite statutory authority
for that method of payment. Deschler Ch 26 § 22.19. Even a proviso that
certain vouchers ‘‘shall be sufficient’’ for expenditure from the appropria-
tion has been ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
Duty to Submit Reports
It is not in order on a general appropriation bill to require an executive
official to submit reports not required by existing law. 7 Cannon § 1442; 93–
2, Apr. 30, 1974, p 12419. In 1986, a provision requiring the Customs Serv-
ice to submit a monthly report to a House committee detailing the number
of district positions authorized and the number of positions vacant was con-
ceded to require new determinations not required by law and ruled out as
legislation. 99–2, Aug. 1, 1986, p 18647. And in one instance, where exist-
ing law required submission of certain agency reports on a quarterly basis,
110
language making the availability of funds therein contingent upon the prior
submission of that report was held to change the reporting requirement es-
tablished pursuant to law and to constitute legislation in violation of clause
2 of Rule XXI. 96–2, July 23, 1980, pp 19303, 19304.
§ 42. Burden of Proof

Generally
The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to a general
appropriation bill to show that a proposed executive duty or determination
is required by existing law, and the mere recitation that it is imposed pursu-
ant to existing law and regulations, absent a citation to the law imposing
that responsibility, is not sufficient to overcome a point of order that the
amendment constitutes legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 22.25.
Determinations Incidental to Other Executive Duties
If a proposed executive determination is not specifically required by ex-
isting law, but is related to other executive duties, then the proponent has
the burden of proving that it is merely incidental thereto. Thus, language
in a general appropriation bill in the form of a conditional limitation requir-
ing determinations by federal officials may be held to change existing law
in violation of clause 2 Rule XXI, unless the Committee on Appropriations
can show that the new duties are merely incidental to functions already re-
quired by law and do not involve substantive new determinations. 99–1, July
26, 1985, p 20808.
§ 43. Altering Executive Authority or Discretion

Generally
A proposition in a general appropriation bill that interferes with author-
ity that has been conferred by law on an executive official ‘‘changes exist-
ing law’’ under Rule XXI clause 2. 4 Hinds § 3846; Deschler Ch 26 § 51.3.
A proposition that significantly alters the discretion conferred on the official
also ‘‘changes existing law’’ within the meaning of that rule. 4 Hinds
§§ 3848–3852; 7 Cannon § 1437; Manual § 842d. Thus, where existing law
authorized the expenditure of funds for a program under broad supervisory
powers given to an executive official, provisions in an appropriation bill
which impose conditions affecting both the exercise of those powers and the
use of funds may be ruled out as legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.4.
A provision in a general appropriation bill requiring the performance of
a duty by a federal official which, under existing law he may at his discre-
tion perform, constitutes legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. 95–
111
2, Aug. 8, 1978, p 24960. And while it is in order on a general appropria-

tion bill to limit the availability of funds therein for part of an authorized
purpose (§ 52, infra), language which restricts not the funds but the discre-
tionary authority of a federal official administering those funds may be ruled
out as legislation. 93–2, June 21, 1974, p 20600.
Language in a general appropriation bill conferring discretionary author-
ity on an executive official where none exists under existing law is subject
to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 § 55.1. A prop-
osition having the purpose of enlarging, rather than restricting, an official’s
discretion, may also be viewed as changing existing law. Deschler Ch 26
§ 51. In 1951, language granting discretionary authority to the Secretary of
the Army to use funds for purposes ‘‘desirable’’ in expediting military pro-
duction was held to be legislation and not in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 59.7.
Earmarking Funds as Affecting Executive Discretion
The earmarking of funds for a particular item from a lump-sum appro-
priation may constitute a limitation on the discretion of the executive
charged with allotment of the lump sum and thus be subject to a point of
order under Rule XXI clause 2. 7 Cannon § 1452. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.5.
See also 101–1, July 12, 1989, p 14432. In 1955, language earmarking some
of the appropriations for the Veterans’ Administration for a special study
of its compensation and pension programs was conceded to be legislation
and held not in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 55.12.
§ 44. Mandating Studies or Investigations

Language in a general appropriation bill describing an investigation
which may be undertaken with funds in the bill at the discretion of an offi-
cial upon whom existing law imposes a general investigative responsibility
does not constitute legislation and is not in violation of Rule XXI clause
2. 93–2, Apr. 9, 1974, pp 10208, 10209. But where existing law gives an
agency discretion to undertake an investigation, language in a general appro-
priation bill that requires the agency to make the investigation is legislation
and subject to a point of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.7. And although an
executive official may have broad investigative responsibilities under exist-
ing law, it may not be in order in a general appropriation bill to impose
a duty on him to undertake a specific additional study. 93–2, Apr. 9, 1974,
pp 10205, 10206.
The mere requirement in a general appropriation bill that an executive
officer be the recipient of information is not considered as imposing upon
him any additional burdens and is in order. 90–2, June 11, 1968, p 16712.
Language has been upheld where it conditioned the availability of funds on
112
certain information being ‘‘made known’’ to an executive official. 7 Cannon

§ 1695. But language imposing new responsibilities on federal officials be-
yond merely being the recipients of information may constitute legislation
in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. 95–1, June 17, 1977, pp 19699, 19700.
Thus, in 1974, language in a general appropriation bill was ruled out as leg-
islation when the Committee on Appropriations conceded that agencies
funded by the bill would be required to examine extraneous documentary
evidence—including hearing transcripts—in addition to the language of the
law itself, to determine the purposes for which the funds had been appro-
priated. 93–2, June 21, 1974, pp 20612, 20613.
§ 45. Granting or Changing Contract Authority

Granting Authority
Language in a general appropriation bill authorizing a governmental
agency to enter into contracts is legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause
2 if such authority is not provided for in existing law. 4 Hinds §§ 3868–
3870; Deschler Ch 26 § 37.4. Although under existing law it may be in
order to appropriate money for a certain purpose, it may not be in order
in a general appropriation bill to grant authority to incur obligations and
enter into contracts in furtherance of that purpose. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 37.3,
37.4. Thus, language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
contracts for the acquisition of land and making future appropriations avail-
able to liquidate those obligations was held legislation on an appropriation
bill and not in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 37.8.
Waiving Contract Law
Language in a general appropriation bill which waives the requirements
of existing law as to when certain contracts may be entered into may be
ruled out as legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26
§ 37.14. Thus, language providing that contracts for supplies or services may
be made by an agency without regard to laws relating to advertising or com-
petitive bidding was conceded to be legislation on an appropriation bill and
held not in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 34.1.
Restricting Contract Authority
A provision in a general appropriation bill changing existing law by re-
stricting the contract authority of an executive official may be ruled out on
a point of order as legislation under Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26
§ 45.3. In one instance, an amendment requiring the Civil Aeronautics Au-
thority to award contracts to the highest bidder only after previously adver-
113
tising for sealed bids was ruled out as legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 46.3.
In 1950, language authorizing an agency to enter into contracts for certain
purposes in an amount not to exceed $7 million was conceded to be legisla-
tion on an appropriation bill and was ruled out absent citation to an existing
law authorizing inclusion of such limitation. Deschler Ch 26 § 37.12. Lan-
guage in an appropriation bill seeking to reduce or rescind contract authority
contained in a previous appropriation bill has also been ruled out as legisla-
tion changing existing law. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 22.14, 24.4. This is so not-
withstanding the adoption in 1974 of a rules change which gave the Appro-
priations Committee jurisdiction over rescissions of appropriations (as distin-
guished from rescission of contract authority). Deschler Ch 26 § 24.4 (note).
The rulings in this section should be considered in the light of § 401(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which precludes consideration of
measures reported by legislative committees providing new spending author-
ity unless the measure also provides that such authority is to be effective
‘‘only to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation
Acts.’’ Since the adoption of this law, language properly limiting the con-
tractual authority of an agency, if specifically permitted by law, would not
render that language subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2.
D. The Holman Rule; Retrenchments
§ 46. In General; Retrenchment of Expenditures

Generally
The House rule that precludes the use of language changing existing
law in a general appropriation bill makes an exception for ‘‘germane provi-
sions which retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money
covered by the bill’’ as reported. Rule XXI clause 2(b). This exception is
referred to as the Holman rule, having been named for the Member who
first suggested it in 1876, William Holman of Indiana. Manual § 834.
Decisions under the Holman rule have been rare in the modern practice
of the House. Manual § 844a. The rule applies to general appropriation bills
only (7 Cannon § 1482), and is not applicable to funds other than those ap-
propriated in the pending bill (7 Cannon § 1525). And in 1983, the House
narrowed the Holman rule exception to apply only to retrenchments reduc-
ing the dollar amounts of money covered by the bill. Manual § 844a.
114
Retrenchments and Limitations Distinguished

A distinction should be noted between retrenchments offered under the
criteria of the Holman rule and ‘‘limitations’’ on appropriation bills, dis-
cussed elsewhere in this article (§§ 50–59, infra). Under the Holman rule,
a provision that is admittedly ‘‘legislative’’ in nature is nevertheless held
to fall outside the general prohibition against such provisions, because it re-
duces the funds in the bill. The limitations discussed in later sections are
not ‘‘legislation’’ and are permitted on the theory that Congress is not
bound to appropriate funds for every authorized purpose. Deschler Ch 26
§ 4.
Under the modern practice, the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ does not apply to limit-
ing language that does not involve a reduction of dollar amounts in the bill.
See Manual § 844a. An amendment which does not show a reduction on its
face and which is merely speculative is not in order under the rule. 102–
2, June 24, 1992, p ll.
The words ‘‘amounts of money covered by the bill’’ in the rule refer
to the amounts specifically appropriated by the bill, but as long as a provi-
sion calls for an obvious reduction at some point in time during the fiscal
year, it 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). Manual § 844a. Language held in order as
effectuating a retrenchment has included a proposition—legislative in
form—providing that total appropriations in the bill be reduced by a speci-
fied amount. Deschler Ch 26 § 4.5.
It has been said that the Holman rule should be strictly construed in
order to avoid the admission of ineligible legislative riders under guise of
a retrenchment. 7 Cannon § 1510.
§ 47. Germaneness Requirements; Application to Funds in Other

Bills
The Holman rule (Rule XXI clause 2), while permitting certain re-
trenchment provisions as an exception to the prohibition against legislation
in appropriation bills, requires that such provisions be germane. Manual
§ 834. An amendment providing that appropriations ‘‘herein and heretofore
made’’ be reduced by a reduction of certain employees was held to be legis-
lative and not germane to the bill, since it went to funds other than those
carried therein, and was therefore not within the Holman rule exception. 89–
2, Oct. 18, 1966, p 27425. An amendment proposing to change existing law
by repealing part of a retirement act was held not germane and not in order
under the Holman rule. Deschler Ch 26 § 5.15.
115
§ 48. Reporting Retrenchment Provisions

At one time, retrenching provisions in general appropriation bills were
reported by the legislative committees of the House. 7 Cannon § 1561. In
1983, the Holman rule was amended to eliminate the separate authority of
legislative committees to report amendments retrenching expenditures; the
new rule permits legislative committees to merely recommend such retrench-
ments to the Appropriations Committee for discretionary inclusion in the re-
ported bill. Manual §§ 834, 844a.
§ 49. Floor Consideration; Who May Offer

A Member may offer in his individual capacity any germane amend-
ment providing legislation on an appropriation bill if it retrenches expendi-
tures under the conditions specified by Rule XXI clause 2(b). 7 Cannon
§ 1566. If an objection is made in the Committee of the Whole that the par-
ticular provision constitutes legislation, the proponent may cite the Holman
rule in response to the point of order:
MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the provision
constitutes a legislative proposition in an appropriation bill in violation of
Rule XXI clause 2(b).
PROPONENT: Mr. Chairman, it is true that this is new legislation, but
it retrenches expenditure, and is therefore in order under the Holman rule.
Under the earlier practice, retrenching amendments to general appropria-
tion bills could be offered during the reading of the bill for amendment in
the Committee of the Whole. In 1983, Rule XXI was narrowed to permit
the consideration of 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. Manual § 834. Gen-
erally, see § 64, infra.
IV. Limitations on General Appropriation Bills

§ 50. In General; When in Order
Generally
While general appropriation bills may not contain legislation, limitations
may validly be imposed under certain circumstances, where the effect is not
to directly change existing law. Deschler Ch 26 § 1. The doctrine of limita-
tions on a general appropriation bill has emerged over the years primarily
from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 26
§ 22.26. The basic theory of limitations is that, just as the House may de-
116
cline to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law, it may by limitation

prohibit the use of the money for part of the purpose while appropriating
for the remainder of it. The limitation cannot change existing law, but may
negatively restrict the use of funds for an authorized purpose or project.
Set out below are the tests to be applied in determining whether lan-
guage in an appropriation bill or amendment thereto constitutes a permis-
sible limitation (from 7 Cannon § 1706 and Deschler Ch 26 § 64).
0 Does the limitation apply solely to the appropriation under consideration?
Note: A limitation may be attached only to the appropria-
tion under consideration and may not be made applicable
to moneys appropriated in other acts. § 59, infra.
0 Does it operate beyond the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made?
Note: A limitation must apply solely to the fiscal year(s)
covered by the bill and may not be made a permanent
provision of law. 4 Hinds § 3929.
0 Is the limitation coupled with a phrase applying to official functions, and
if so, does the phrase give affirmative directions in fact or in effect, al-
though not in form?
Note: A proposition to establish affirmative directions for
an executive officer constitutes legislation and is not in
order on a general appropriation bill. 4 Hinds § 3854.
0 Is it accompanied by a phrase which might be construed to impose addi-
tional duties? Does it curtail or extend, modify, or alter existing powers
or duties, or terminate old or confer new ones?
Note: Limitations which change the duties imposed by
law on an executive officer in the expenditure of appro-
priated funds is not in order. § 54, infra.
0 Is the limitation authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation?
Note: An amendment proposing a limitation not author-
ized in existing law for the period of the limitation is not
in order during the reading of the bill by paragraph. Rule
XXI clause 2(c); Manual § 834.
A restriction on authority to incur obligations contained in a general ap-
propriation bill is legislative in nature and is not a limitation on use of funds
in the bill. 100–1, July 13, 1987, pp 19505, 19506.
Certain amendments proposing limitations are in order only after the
reading of the bill for amendment has been completed and, if a privileged
motion to rise and report is offered (by the Majority Leader or his designee),
is rejected. The House rules permit consideration at this time of amendments
proposing limitations not contained or authorized in existing law or propos-
ing germane amendments which retrench expenditures. Rule XXI clause
2(d). Retrenchment of expenditures, see § 46, supra.
117
Construction of Rule; Burden of Proof

The doctrine permitting limitations on a general appropriation bill is
strictly construed. Deschler Ch 26 § 80.5. The language of the limitation
must not be such as, when fairly construed, would change existing law (4
Hinds §§ 3976–3983) or justify an executive officer in assuming an intent
to change existing law (4 Hinds § 3984; 7 Cannon § 1707). The language
of Rule XXI clause 2(c), which permits limitation amendments during the
reading of a bill by paragraphs only if authorized by existing law, is like-
wise strictly construed; it applies only where existing law requires or per-
mits the inclusion of limiting language in an appropriation act, and not
merely where the limitation is alleged to be ‘‘consistent with existing law.’’
100–2, June 28, 1988, p 16267.
To be in order the limitation must apply to a specific purpose, or object,
or amount of appropriation. If a proposed limitation goes beyond the tradi-
tionally permissible objectives of a limitation, as for example by restricting
discretion in the timing of the expenditure of funds rather than restricting
their use for a specific object or purpose, the Chair may rule that the amend-
ment constitutes legislation in the absence of a convincing argument by the
proponent that the amendment does not change existing law. Deschler Ch
26 § 80.5.
As a general proposition, whenever a limitation is accompanied by the
words ‘‘unless,’’ ‘‘except,’’ ‘‘until,’’ ‘‘if,’’ or the like, there is ground to
view the provision with the suspicion that it may be legislation; and in case
of doubt as to its ultimate effect the doubt should be resolved on the con-
servative side. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.2. The limitation may not be accom-
panied by language stating a motive or purpose in carrying it out. Deschler
Ch 26 § 66.4. Where terms used in a purported limitation are challenged be-
cause of their ambiguity or indefiniteness, the burden is on its proponent
to show that no new duties would arise in the course of applying its terms.
Deschler Ch 26 § 57.17 (note).
Effecting Policy Changes
While a limitation on a general appropriation bill may not involve
changes of existing law or affirmatively restrict executive discretion, it may,
by a simple denial of the use of funds, change administrative policy and
be in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.15. For example, in one instance during
consideration of an army appropriation bill in 1931, an amendment was al-
lowed which provided that the funds appropriated could not be used for
compulsory military training in certain schools. The Chair noted that the
amendment ‘‘simply refuses to appropriate for purposes which are author-
ized by law and for which Congress may or may not appropriate as it sees
118
fit,’’ and that while the amendment did in fact change a policy of the War
Department, ‘‘a change of policy can be made by the failure of Congress
to appropriate for an authorized object.’’ 7 Cannon § 1694.
Limitations Relating to Tax and Tariff Measures
Revenue measures fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means. Rule X clause 1(s). Manual § 688. Tax measures may not
be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction thereof. Rule XXI
clause 5(b). Manual § 846b. In determining whether a limitation in a general
appropriation bill constitutes a tax measure proscribed by this clause, the
Chair will consider argument as to the certainty of impact on revenue col-
lections and tax status or liability. 99–2, Aug. 1, 1986, p 18649. A limitation
on the use of funds contained in such a bill may be held to violate this
clause where the limitation has the effect of requiring the collection of reve-
nues not otherwise provided for by law (98–1, Oct. 27, 1983, pp 29611,
29612), or where it is shown that the imposition of the restriction on IRS
funding for the fiscal year would preclude the IRS from collecting revenues
otherwise due and owing by law (99–1, July 26, 1985, p 20806; 99–2, Aug.
1, 1986, p 18649). See also 101–2, July 13, 1990, p ll.
§ 51. Limitations on Amount Appropriated

Generally
A negative restriction on the use of funds above a certain amount in
an appropriation bill is in order as a limitation. 91–1, July 30, 1969, p
21471. As long as a limitation on the use of funds restricts the expenditure
of federal funds carried in the bill without changing existing law, the limita-
tion is in order, even if the federal funds in question are commingled with
non-federal funds which would have to be accounted for separately in carry-
ing out the limitation. 96–2, Aug. 20, 1980, pp 22171, 22172.
‘‘Not To Exceed’’ Limitations
Language that an expenditure ‘‘is not to exceed’’ a certain amount is
permissible. Deschler Ch 26 § 67.36. But the fact that funds in a general
appropriation bill are included in the form of a ‘‘not to exceed’’ limitation
does not preclude a point of order under clause 2(a), Rule XXI that the
funds are not authorized by law. 100–2, June 21, 1988, pp 15438–40.
Ceilings on Total Expenditures
Many limitations on funding that are offered to general appropriation
bills apply to only one of the agencies covered by the bill. But a limitation
may be drafted in such a way as to place a ceiling on the total amount to
119
be expended by all agencies covered by the bill. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 80.1,

80.2.
Spending ‘‘Floors’’
Precedents holding in order negative restrictions on the use of funds
must be distinguished from cases where an amendment, though cast in the
form of a limitation, can be interpreted to require the spending of more
money—for example, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds to keep
less than a certain number of people employed. A ‘‘floor’’ on employment
levels is tantamount to an affirmative direction to hire no fewer than a spec-
ified number of employees, and would be subject to a point of order as leg-
islation. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.15 (note). That point of order will also lie
against an amendment requiring not less than a certain sum to be used for
a particular purpose where existing law does not mandate such expenditure.
97–2, July 29, 1982, p 18623.
§ 52. Limitations on Particular Uses

Generally
An amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a general appropriation
bill for a certain purpose is in order, although the availability of funds for
that purpose is authorized by law. Deschler Ch 26 § 64.1. Such limitations
are in order even though contracts may be left unsatisfied thereby. Deschler
Ch 26 § 64.25. An amendment to a general appropriation bill which is strict-
ly limited to funds appropriated in the bill, and which is negative and re-
strictive in character and prohibits certain uses of the funds, is in order as
a limitation even though its imposition will change the present distribution
of funds and require incidental duties on the part of those administering the
funds. Deschler Ch 26 § 67.19. Thus, it has been held in order in a general
appropriation bill to deny the use of funds:
0 For federal officials to formulate or carry out tobacco programs. 95–1, June
20, 1977, p 19882.
0 To pay certain rewards. 96–1, July 13, 1979, p 18451.
0 For implementation of any plan to invade North Vietnam. Deschler Ch 26
§ 70.1.
0 For the operation and maintenance of facilities where intoxicating bev-
erages are sold or dispensed. Deschler Ch 26 § 70.4.
0 To pay government employees a larger wage than that paid for the same
work in private industry. 7 Cannon § 1591.
0 For work on which naval prisoners were employed in preference to reg-
istered laborers and mechanics. 7 Cannon § 1646.
0 For salaries or compensation for legal services in connection with any suit
to enjoin labor unions from striking. 7 Cannon § 1638.
120
0 For agriculture commodity programs under which payments to any single

farmer would exceed a certain dollar amount. Deschler Ch 26 § 67.33.
0 For expansion of court facilities at Flint, Mich. Deschler Ch 26 § 69.6.
0 For dissemination of market information over government-owned or leased
wires serving privately owned newspapers, radio, or television. Deschler
Ch 26 § 67.9.
Partial Restrictions
An amendment to a general appropriation bill which restricts the use
of money in the bill to a part of an authorized project is in order though
the bill would otherwise permit full funding of the authorization. 91–1, July
22, 1969, p 20329. While it is not in order as an amendment to a general
appropriation bill to directly restrict the discretionary authority of a federal
agency (§ 53, infra), it is permissible to limit the availability of funds in the
bill for part of an authorized purpose while appropriating for the remainder.
93–2, June 21, 1974, pp 20601, 20602. In the 95th Congress, the Chair indi-
cated that an amendment to a general appropriation bill negatively restricting
funding therein for part of a discretionary activity authorized by law would
be in order if no new affirmative duties or determinations were thereby re-
quired. 95–2, June 9, 1978, p 16996.
Restrictions Relating to Agency Regulations
It is in order on a general appropriation bill to deny the use of funds
to carry out an existing agency regulation. Deschler Ch 26 § 64.28. Thus,
an amendment providing that no part of a lump sum shall be used to pro-
mulgate or enforce certain rules or regulations precisely described in the
amendment was held to be a proper limitation restricting the availability of
funds and in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 79.7. The fact that the regulation for
which funds are denied may have been promulgated pursuant to court order
and pursuant to constitutional provisions is an argument on the merits of
the amendment and does not render it legislative in nature. Deschler Ch 26
§ 64.28.
§ 53. Interference With Executive Discretion

Assuming that it does not change existing law, a negative restriction on
the availability of funds for a specified purpose in a general appropriation
bill may be a proper limitation even though it indirectly interferes with an
executive official’s discretionary authority by denying the use of funds.
Deschler Ch 26 § 64.26. The limitation may in fact amount to a change in
policy, but if the limitation is merely a negative restriction on use of funds,
it will normally be allowed. 7 Cannon § 1694; Deschler Ch 26 § 51. Thus,
121
it is in order on a general appropriation bill to provide that no part, or not

more than a specified amount, of an appropriation shall be used in a certain
way, even though executive discretion be thereby negatively restricted. 4
Hinds § 3968; Deschler Ch 26 § 51.9.
On the other hand, it is not in order, under the guise of a limitation,
to affirmatively interfere with executive discretion by coupling a restriction
on the payment of funds with a positive direction to perform certain duties
contrary to existing law. Deschler Ch 26 § 51.12. For example, an amend-
ment prohibiting funds from being used to handle parcel post at less than
attributable cost was ruled out on the point of order that its effect would
directly interfere with the Postal Rate Commission’s quasi-discretionary au-
thority to establish postal rates under guidelines in law. Deschler Ch 26
§ 51.22.
The point of order lies against language enlarging or granting new dis-
cretionary authority as well as to language curtailing executive discretion.
An amendment in the form of a limitation providing that no part of the ap-
propriated funds shall be paid to any state unless the Secretary of Agri-
culture is satisfied that the state has complied with certain conditions was
held to be legislation imposing new discretionary authority on a federal offi-
cial. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.25.
§ 54. Imposing Duties or Requiring Determinations

Generally; Imposing Executive Duties
While it is in order in a general appropriation bill to limit the use of
funds for an activity authorized by law, the House may not, under the guise
of a limitation in the bill, impose additional new burdens and duties on an
executive officer. 91–1, July 31, 1969, pp 21631–33. Such a provision may
be ruled out as legislation on a general appropriation bill in violation of
clause 2 Rule XXI. 89–2, Oct. 4, 1966, p 24975. Of course, the application
of any limitation on an appropriation bill places some minimal extra duties
on federal officials, who, if nothing else, must determine whether a particu-
lar use of funds is prohibited by the limitation; but when an amendment,
while curtailing certain uses of funds carried in the bill, explicitly places
new duties on officers of the government or inevitably requires them to
make investigations, compile evidence, discern the motives or intent of indi-
viduals, or make judgments not otherwise required of them by law, then it
assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order.
122
Requiring Executive Determinations

A restriction on the use of funds in a general appropriation bill which
requires a federal official to make a substantive determination not required
by any law applicable to his authority, thereby requiring new investigations
not required by law, is legislation in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.
Deschler Ch 26 § 52.38. Thus, it is not in order to require federal officials,
in determining the extent of availability of funds, to make substantial find-
ings not required by existing law (97–2, Dec. 9, 1982, pp 29690, 29691),
or to make evaluations of propriety and effectiveness not required to be
made by existing law (97–1, Oct. 6, 1981, p 23361). Language requiring
new determinations by federal officials is subject to a point of order regard-
less of whether or not state officials administering the federal funds in ques-
tion routinely make such determinations. Deschler Ch 26 § 61.12.
On the other hand, if the determinations required by the language are
already required by law, no point of order lies. For example, an amendment
denying funds to rehire certain federal employees engaged in a strike in vio-
lation of federal law was held in order as a limitation not requiring new
determinations on the part of federal officials administering those funds,
since existing law and a court order enjoining the strike already imposed
an obligation on the administering officials to enforce the law. Deschler Ch
26 § 74.6.
Impermissible Duties or Determinations
Set out below are provisions offered to general appropriation bills that
have been ruled out under Rule XXI clause 2 as imposing new duties or
requiring new determinations not found in existing law:
0 An amendment proposing a reduction of expenditures through an apportion-
ment procedure authorized by law, but requiring such reduction to be
made ‘‘without impairing national defense.’’ Deschler Ch 26 § 52.6.
0 Language prohibiting use of funds for the furnishing of sophisticated weap-
ons systems to certain countries ‘‘unless the President determines’’ it to
be important to the national security, such determination to be reported
within 30 days to the Congress. 91–2, June 4, 1970, p 18400.
0 An amendment providing that no part of the appropriation could be used
to make grants or loans to any country which the Secretary of State be-
lieved to be dominated by the foreign government controlling the world
Communist movement. Deschler Ch 26 § 59.17.
0 An amendment prohibiting payment of funds in the bill for the support of
any action resulting in the destruction of a structure of historic or cultural
significance. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.17.
0 Language providing funds for grants to states for unemployment compensa-
tion ‘‘only to the extent that the Secretary finds necessary.’’ Deschler Ch
26 § 52.14.
123
0 A paragraph requiring that appropriations in the bill be available for ex-

penses of attendance of officers and employees at meetings or conven-
tions ‘‘under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.’’ Deschler Ch 26
§ 52.13.
0 An amendment restricting the availability of funds for certain countries
until the President reports to Congress his determination that such coun-
try does not deny or impose more than nominal restrictions on the right
of its citizens to emigrate. Deschler Ch 26 § 55.5.
0 An amendment denying the use of funds for foreign firms which receive
certain government subsidies but permitting the President to waive such
restriction in the national interest with prior notice to Congress. Deschler
Ch 26 § 56.7.
0 An amendment denying the use of funds for a certain publication until
there had been a review of all conclusions reached therein and a deter-
mination that they were factual. 96–2, July 30, 1980, pp 20504–506.
0 A provision limiting the availability of funds for grants-in-aid to any airport
that failed to provide designated and enforced smoking and nonsmoking
areas for passengers in airport terminal areas. 99–2, July 30, 1986, p
18188.
0 A section restricting funds for special pay of physicians or dentists whose
‘‘primary’’ duties were administrative. 98–1, Nov. 2, 1983, p 30494.
0 A provision restricting funds to carry out any requirement that small busi-
ness meet certain prequalifications of ‘‘acceptable’’ product marketability
to be eligible to bid on certain defense contracts. 98–1, Nov. 2, 1983,
p 30495.
Determinations as to Intent or Motive
An amendment curtailing the use of the funds for certain purposes if
the use is with a certain intent or motive requires new determinations by
the officials administering the funds and is subject to a point of order as
legislation. 91–1, July 31, 1969, pp 21653, 21675. Thus an amendment pro-
hibiting the use of funds in the bill to pay rewards for information leading
to the detection of any person violating certain laws, or ‘‘conniving’’ to do
so, was ruled out as legislation since requiring the executive branch to deter-
mine what constitutes ‘‘conniving’’ at violating the law. 96–1, July 13,
1979, p 18451. Similarly, an amendment denying use of funds in the bill
to grant business licenses to persons selling drug paraphernalia ‘‘intended
for use’’ in drug preparation or use was ruled out as legislation requiring
new duties and judgments of government officials. Deschler Ch 26 § 23.18.
In the 93d Congress, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds in the bill
for abortions or abortion-related services, and defining abortion as the ‘‘in-
tentional’’ destruction of unborn human life, was conceded to impose new
affirmative duties on officials administering the funds and was ruled out as
legislation. Deschler Ch 26 § 25.14. And in 1984, a paragraph denying use
124
of funds in the bill to sell certain loans except with the consent of the bor-
rower was conceded to be legislation requiring new determinations of ‘‘con-
sent’’ and was ruled out in violation of clause 2(c) of Rule XXI. 98–2, May
31, 1984, p 14590.
Negative Prohibition and Affirmative Direction Distinguished
To be permitted in a general appropriation bill, a limitation must be in
effect a negative prohibition on the use of the money, not an affirmative
direction to an executive officer. 4 Hinds § 3975. When it assumes affirma-
tive form by direction to an executive in the discharge of his duties under
existing law, it ceases to be a limitation and becomes legislation. 7 Cannon
§ 1606. The limitation must be in effect a negative prohibition which pro-
poses an easily discernible standard for determining the application of the
use of funds. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.23.
Imposing ‘‘Incidental’’ Duties
The fact that a limitation on the use of funds may impose certain inci-
dental burdens on executive officials does not destroy the character of the
limitation as long as it does not directly amend existing law and is descrip-
tive of functions and findings already required to be undertaken by existing
law. Deschler Ch 26 § 71.2; Manual § 843c. Thus, an amendment reducing
the availability of funds for trade adjustment assistance by amounts of un-
employment insurance entitlements was held in order where the law estab-
lishing trade adjustment assistance already required the disbursing agency to
take into consideration levels of unemployment insurance in determining
payment levels. 96–2, June 18, 1980, p 15355.
The proponent should show that the new duties are merely incidental
to functions already required by law and do not involve substantive new de-
terminations. 99–1, July 26, 1985, p 20808.
Effect of Information ‘‘Made Known’’
As noted above (§ 44, supra), the mere requirement that the executive
officer be the recipient of information is not considered as imposing upon
him any additional burdens and is in order. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.5. Where
the language on its face merely recites a passive situation as a condition
precedent for receipt of funds, as opposed to imposing an ongoing respon-
sibility on a federal official to ascertain information, the language may be
a proper limitation. Deschler Ch 26 § 59.19 (note). Thus, a provision deny-
ing funds to an executive when certain information ‘‘shall be made known’’
to the executive has been upheld as a limitation. 7 Cannon § 1695. For a
similar ‘‘made known’’ provision, see 103–1, June 30, 1993, p ll. See
125
also 101–1, Aug. 1, 1981, pp 17156–60, and 104–1, June 22, 1995, p ll,
where motions to recommit general appropriation bills with ‘‘made known’’
limitations were ruled out as limitations which had not been considered in
the Committee of the Whole and were thus not in order on the motion to
recommit. See Rule XXI clause 2(d). (They were not challenged as ‘‘legisla-
tion’’ in violation of Rule XXI clause 2(c).)
Imposing Duties on Nonfederal Official
Under the modern practice, it is not in order to make the availability
of funds in a general appropriation bill contingent upon a substantive deter-
mination by a state or local government official or agency which is not oth-
erwise required by existing law. 81–1, Mar. 30, 1949, p 3531; 99–1, July
25, 1985, p 20569. See Deschler Ch 26 § 53 (note).
§ 55. — Duties Relating to Construction or Implementation of Law

Duty of Statutory Construction
While all limitations on funds on appropriation acts require federal offi-
cials to construe the language of that law in administering those funds, that
duty of statutory construction, absent a further imposition of an affirmative
direction not required by law, does not destroy the validity of the limitation.
Deschler Ch 26 § 64.30. Thus, an amendment restricting the use of funds
for abortion or abortion-related services and activities was upheld as a nega-
tive limitation imposing no new duties on federal officials other than to con-
strue the language of the limitation in administering the funds. Deschler Ch
26 § 73.8. And it is in order on a general appropriation bill to deny funds
for the payment of salary to a federal employee who is not in compliance
with a federal law, if the limitation places no new duties on the federal offi-
cial who is already charged with enforcing that law. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.34.
On the other hand, it is not in order in a general appropriation bill to
limit the use of an appropriation and to provide how existing laws, rules,
and regulations should be construed in carrying out the limitation. 96–1,
July 16, 1979, p 18806. Nor is it in order to condition the availability of
funds or contract authority upon an interpretation of local law where that
determination is not required by existing law. 97–1, July 17, 1981, pp
16326, 16327.
Implementation of Existing Rules or Policies
It is in order on a general appropriation bill to make the availability
of funds therein contingent upon the implementation of a policy already en-
acted into law, providing the description of that policy is precise and does
not impose additional duties on the officials responsible for its implementa-
126
tion. 92–1, Nov. 17, 1971, p 41838. And an amendment prohibiting the use
of funds in the bill to an agency to implement a ruling of the agency may
be held in order as a limitation, where the amendment is merely descriptive
of an existing ruling already promulgated by that agency and does not re-
quire new executive determinations. Deschler Ch 26 § 64.27.
§ 56. Conditional Limitations

Generally
The House may by limitation on a general appropriation bill provide
that an appropriation shall be available contingent on a future event. 7 Can-
non § 1579. However, it is not in order:
0 To make the availability of funds in the bill contingent upon a substantive
determination by an executive official which he is not otherwise required
by law to make. 92–1, June 23, 1971, p 21647.
0 To impose additional duties on an executive officer and to make the appro-
priation contingent upon the performance of such duties. 95–2, June 7,
1978, p 16677.
0 To condition the use of such funds on the performance of a new duty not
expressly required by law. 95–1, June 23, 1977, p 20597. 93–1, Apr. 17,
1973, p 12781.
To a bill making appropriations for the U.S. contribution to various
international organizations, an amendment providing that none of the funds
might be expended until all other members had met their financial obliga-
tions was ruled out as legislation which imposed a duty on a federal official
to determine the extent of such obligations. Deschler Ch 26 § 59.16.
In one recent instance, an amendment limiting funds for foreign aid
until the President submitted a report analyzing the effectiveness of U.S.
economic assistance for each recipient country was held to change existing
law and was ruled out of order as a violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. 100–
2, May 25, 1988, p 12270. But the imposition of certain incidental burdens
on executive officials will not destroy the character of the limitation so long
as those duties—such as statistical comparisons and findings of residence
and employment status—are already mandated by law. 94–2, Aug. 25, 1976,
p 27739.
Language in a general appropriation bill in the form of a conditional
limitation requiring determinations by federal officials will be held to
change existing law in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI unless the Committee
on Appropriations can show that the new duties are merely incidental to
functions already required by law and do not involve substantive new deter-
minations. 99–1, July 26, 1985, p 20808.
127
A conditional limitation in a general appropriation bill is also subject

to a point of order where the condition is not related to the expenditures
specified in the bill. Where a bill contained funds not only for certain allow-
ances for former President Nixon, and also for other departments and agen-
cies, an amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until
Nixon had made restitution of a designated amount to the U.S. government
was ruled out as not germane and as legislation, where that contingency was
not related to the availability of other funds in the bill. 93–2, Oct. 2, 1974,
pp 33620, 33621. Conditions as legislation on appropriation bills generally,
see § 29, supra.
Condition Subsequent
Where the expenditure of funds made available in an appropriation bill
is subject to a condition subsequent—so that spending is to cease upon the
occurrence of a specified condition—the language may be upheld as a prop-
er limitation on an appropriation bill, provided that it does not change exist-
ing law. This is so even though the contingency specified may never occur.
Deschler Ch 26 § 67.2. Thus, a provision that an appropriation for the pay
of volunteer soldiers should not be available longer than a certain period
after the ratification of a treaty of peace was upheld as a limitation. 4 Hinds
§ 4004. Other conditions subsequent that have been upheld as limitations
have included:
0 An amendment stating that if the appropriations act were to be declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, none of the money provided
could thereafter be spent. Deschler Ch 26 § 76.6.
0 An amendment terminating the use of the appropriated funds after the pas-
sage of certain legislation pending before the Congress. Deschler Ch 26
§ 64.10.
On the other hand, it is not in order in a general appropriation bill to
restrict the discretionary authority of an executive official by a condition
subsequent which changes existing law. 99–1, July 31, 1985, p 21909. For
example, where existing law confers discretionary authority on an executive
agency as to the submission of health and safety information by applicants
for licenses, an amendment to a general appropriation bill restricting that
discretion by requiring the submission of such information as a condition
of receiving funds constitutes legislation. 96–1, June 18, 1979, pp 15286,
15287.
Conditions Relating to the Application or Interpretation of State Law
A limitation in a general appropriation bill may be upheld where it de-
nies funds for a certain activity where that activity would be in violation
of state law. But such a limitation may be subject to a point of order if
128
it imposes on federal officials a duty to become conversant with a variety

of state laws and regulations. Whether such duty would constitute a new or
additional duty not contemplated in existing law would then be at issue.
Deschler Ch 26 § 67.8. 97–1, July 17, 1981, pp 16326, 16327.
Language in an appropriation bill which specifies that funds therein
shall not be used for any project which ‘‘does not have local official ap-
proval’’ has been upheld as not imposing additional duties, and in order.
89–1, Oct. 14, 1965, p 26994.
§ 57. Exceptions to Limitations

An exception to a valid limitation in a general appropriation bill is in
order, providing the exception does not add legislative language in violation
of Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 64.14, 64.15, 66.7. An exception
from a limitation on the use of funds stating that the limitation does not
prohibit their use for certain designated federal activities may be held in
order as not containing new legislation if those activities are already man-
dated by law. Deschler Ch 26 § 66.6. Set out below are other exceptions
to limitations in general appropriation bills that have been held in order:
0 An amendment inserting ‘‘Except as required by the Constitution’’ in pro-
visions prohibiting the use of funds to force a school district to take ac-
tion involving the busing of students. Deschler Ch 26 § 64.14.
0 A paragraph denying use of funds for antitrust actions against units of local
government, but providing that the limitation did not apply to private
antitrust actions. Deschler Ch 26 § 66.10.
0 In an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for food stamp assistance
for certain households, language stating that such limitation did not apply
to a household eligible for general assistance from a local government.
Exceptions to limitation amendments which fail to comply with the
principle that limiting language must not contain legislation are subject to
a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 § 63.7. That point
of order will lie, for example, against an exception from a limitation if it
contains legislation requiring new executive determinations. 94–2, June 16,
1976, pp 18681, 18682. However, an exception from a limitation may in-
clude language precisely descriptive of authority provided in law so long as
the exception only requires determinations already required by law and does
not impose new duties on federal officials. Deschler Ch 26 § 66.3.
§ 58. Limitations as to Recipients of Funds

While it is not in order in a general appropriation bill to legislate as
to qualifications of the recipients of an appropriation, the House may specify
129
that no part of the appropriation shall go to recipients lacking certain quali-

fications. 7 Cannon § 1655; Manual § 843a. See also Deschler Ch 26 § 53.
It is in order to describe the qualifications of the recipients of the funds and
to deny the availability of those funds to recipients not meeting those cri-
teria, the restriction being confined to the fiscal year covered by the bill.
92–2, June 29, 1972, p 23364. It is likewise in order to deny the availability
of funds in the bill to an office that fails to satisfy certain factual criteria,
so long as no new substantive determinations are required. 95–2, June 14,
1978, p 17668.
Amendments requiring the recipients of funds carried in the bill to be
in compliance with an existing law have been permitted where the con-
cerned federal officials are already under an obligation to oversee the en-
forcement of existing law and are thus burdened by no additional duties by
the amendment. 91–1, July 31, 1969, p 21633.
Set out below are limitations relating to the qualifications of recipients
which have been held in order in a general appropriation bill:
0 A limitation on payments from appropriated funds to persons receiving pay
from another source in excess of a certain amount. 7 Cannon § 1669.
0 An amendment providing that none of the funds for a program shall be
paid to any person having a certain net income in the previous calendar
year. Deschler Ch 26 § 67.3.
0 An amendment proposing that no part of an appropriation for an agency
shall be used for salaries of persons in certain positions who are not
qualified engineers with at least 10 years’ experience. Deschler Ch 26
§ 76.2.
0 An amendment denying funds to pay the compensation of persons who al-
locate positions in the classified civil service subject to a maximum age
requirement. Deschler Ch 26 § 74.1.
An amendment to a general appropriation bill which denies the avail-
ability of funds in the bill for the benefit of a certain category of recipients
but which requires federal officials to make additional determinations not re-
quired by law as to the qualifications of those recipients is legislation. 95–
1, June 16, 1977, pp 19362–64. Such an amendment is legislation if it re-
quires a federal official to subjectively evaluate the propriety or nature of
130
individual conduct. 96–2, Sept. 16, 1980, p 25604. Provisions ruled out of
order as requiring additional determinations have included:
0 An amendment denying funds for financial assistance to college students
who had engaged in certain types of disruptive conduct, and requiring
that the college initiate certain hearing procedures. Deschler Ch 26
§ 61.4.
0 An amendment prohibiting the use of ‘‘impacted school assistance’’ funds
for children whose parents were employed on Federal property outside
the school district. Deschler Ch 26 § 52.18.
0 An amendment prohibiting the expenditure of funds in any workplace that
was not free of illegal substances by requiring contract recipients to so
certify and requiring contracts to contain provisions withholding payment
upon violation. 100–2, May 18, 1988, p 11388.
§ 59. Limitations on Funds in Other Acts

A limitation must apply solely to the money of the appropriation under
consideration and may not be applied to money appropriated in other acts.
A limitation that is not confined to funds in the pending bill is legislation
on an appropriation bill under Rule XXI clause 2 and not in order. 4 Hinds
§ 3927; 7 Cannon § 1495; Deschler Ch 26 §§ 27.2, 27.7, 27.8, 27.12, 27.16.
And an amendment to an appropriation bill seeking to change a limitation
on expenditures carried in a previous appropriation bill has been held to be
legislation and not in order. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 22.9, 22.10. Language re-
quiring future fiscal year funding to be subject to limitations to be subse-
quently specified is legislation and not in order. 99–2, May 8, 1986, p
10156.
Set out below are provisions in general appropriation bills that have
been held out of order because they imposed a limitation that was not con-
fined to the funds in the bill:
0 An amendment providing that funds appropriated ‘‘or otherwise made
available’’ for a public works project be limited to a certain use. 95–
2, June 15, 1978, p 12831.
0 Language in the form of a limitation providing no part of the appropriation
contained ‘‘in this or any other act’’ be used for a certain purpose.
0 Language in an appropriation bill providing that no part of ‘‘any appropria-
tion’’ shall be used for a specified purpose. Deschler Ch 26 § 27.18.
0 An amendment in the guise of a limitation providing that ‘‘no appropriation
heretofore made’’ be used for a certain purpose. Deschler Ch 26 § 27.21.
0 An amendment in the form of a limitation declaring that ‘‘hereafter no part
of any appropriation’’ shall be available for certain purposes. Deschler
Ch 26 §§ 27.16, 27.25.
131
0 An amendment providing that none of the funds in the bill ‘‘or elsewhere
made available’’ be used for a certain purpose. Deschler Ch 26 § 27.12.
0 An amendment providing that ‘‘total payments to any person’’ under a soil
conservation program shall not exceed a certain amount. Deschler Ch 26
§ 27.5.
V. Reappropriations
§ 60. In General
Generally; Transfers Distinguished
A restriction against the inclusion of reappropriations in general appro-
priation bills is set forth in House Rule XXI clause 6. Manual § 847. Reap-
propriations are to be distinguished from transfers of funds, which are per-
mitted under some circumstances. See §§ 36, 37, supra.
Prior to enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, provi-
sions which reappropriated in a direct manner unexpended balances and con-
tinued their availability for the same purpose for an extended period of time
were not prohibited by Rule XXI because they were not deemed to change
existing law by conferring new authority. 4 Hinds § 3592; 7 Cannon § 1152;
Deschler Ch 26 § 30. Today however, with two exceptions, a provision re-
appropriating unexpended balances may not be considered in a general ap-
propriation bill or amendment thereto. Rule XXI clause 6. Manual § 847.
Specifically excluded from the operation of this rule are (1) appropriations
in continuation of appropriations for public works on which work has com-
menced, and (2) transfers of unexpended balances within the department or
agency for which they were originally appropriated. Manual § 847. As to
what constitutes a public work-in-progress under Rule XXI clause 1, see
§ 26, supra.
Rule XXI clause 6 is limited by its terms to general appropriation bills
and amendments thereto, and the exceptions specified by it apply only to
propositions reported by the Committee on Appropriations. Manual § 847.
An unreported joint resolution carrying a transfer of unobligated balances
of previously appropriated funds—and not containing an appropriation of
any new budget authority—is not a ‘‘general appropriation bill’’ within the
meaning of that rule. 100–2, Mar. 3, 1988, p 32335.
Provisions Subject to a Point of Order
Language in a general appropriation bill making available unobligated
balances of funds appropriated in prior appropriation acts may constitute a
reappropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 6. Deschler Ch 25 § 3.2; 97–
132
2, July 29, 1982, p 18625; 100–2, June 28, 1988, p 16254. A provision
transferring previously appropriated funds to extend their availability and to
merge them with current-year funds is likewise in violation of clause 6. 98–
1, Oct. 26, 1983, pp 29416, 29417. Unless permitted under one of the ex-
ceptions specified in the rule, the reappropriation is subject to a point of
order even though the funds are sought for the same purpose as the original
appropriation (Deschler Ch 25 § 3.3), and even though the original appro-
priation was authorized in law (102–2, July 28, 1992, p ll).
Authorization Bills and Reappropriations
Language in an appropriation bill continuing the availability of unobli-
gated balances of prior appropriations is in order where provisions of the
original authorizing legislation permit such a reappropriation and are still in
effect. Deschler Ch 25 § 3.8. Rule XXI clause 6 is not applicable to appro-
priation bills when the reappropriation language is identical to legislative au-
thorization language enacted subsequent to the adoption of the rule, since
the authorizing law is a more recent expression of the will of the House.
VI. Reporting; Consideration and Debate

A. Generally
§ 61. Privileged Status; Voting
Generally
General appropriation bills have long enjoyed a privileged status under
the rules of the House. Subject to a three-day layover requirement (§ 62,
infra) such bills may be reported ‘‘at any time’’ under Rule XI clause 4(a).
Manual § 726. Generally, see COMMITTEES. In 1981, this privilege was ex-
tended to joint resolutions continuing appropriations for a fiscal year if re-
ported after September 15 preceding the beginning of such fiscal year. Man-
ual § 726. The privilege does not extend to special appropriations to address
a specific purpose. 8 Cannon § 2285. Similarly, a joint resolution providing
an appropriation for a single government agency is not a general appropria-
tion bill and is not reported as privileged. Deschler Ch 25 § 7.4.
Nonprivileged appropriation bills may be made in order by unanimous
consent or pursuant to a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
Deschler Ch 25 § 6. Generally, see § 75, infra.
The yeas and nays are automatically ordered when the Speaker puts the
question on final passage or adoption of any bill, joint resolution, or con-
133
ference report making general appropriations. Rule XV clause 7; Manual

§ 774e.
Prior Consideration in the Committee of the Whole

All bills that make appropriations—indeed all proceedings ‘‘touching
appropriations’’—require consideration first in Committee of the Whole, and
a point of order made pursuant to this rule is good at any time before the
consideration of a bill has commenced. Rule XXIII clause 3. Manual § 865.
Filing an appropriation bill ‘‘as privileged’’ permits a later privileged mo-
tion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
purpose of considering the bill. Rule XVI clause 9. Manual § 802.
To require consideration in Committee of the Whole under Rule XXIII
clause 3, a bill must show on its face that it falls within the requirements
of the rule. 4 Hinds §§ 4811–4817; 8 Cannon § 2391. Where the expenditure
is a mere matter of speculation (4 Hinds §§ 4818–4821), or where the bill
might involve a charge on the Treasury but does not necessarily do so (4
Hinds §§ 4809, 4810), the rule does not apply. In passing on the question
as to whether a proposition involves a charge upon the Treasury, the Speak-
er is confined to the provisions of the text and may not take into consider-
ation personal knowledge not directly deducible therefrom. 8 Cannon
§§ 2386, 2391. But where a bill sets in motion a train of circumstances des-
tined ultimately to involve Treasury expenditures, it must be considered in
Committee of the Whole. 4 Hinds § 4827; 8 Cannon § 2399. The require-
ments of the rule apply to amendments as well as to bills. 4 Hinds §§ 4793,
4794. Indeed, the rule applies to any portion of a bill requiring an appropria-
tion, even though it be merely incidental to the bill’s main purpose. 4 Hinds
§ 4825. Senate amendments, see § 70, infra.
Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole

Pursuant to a special order previously agreed to, an appropriation bill
may be called up as if privileged and considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole (meaning that the bill is considered as read and
open to amendment at any point under the five-minute rule, without general
debate). 89–1, Oct. 13, 1965, p 26881; 89–1, Sept. 28, 1965, p 25342; 91–
1, June 24, 1969, pp 17015–17; 91–2, June 24, 1970, p 21239. And on nu-
merous occasions the House has by unanimous consent provided for the
consideration of an appropriation bill in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole. 87–2, June 14, 1962, p 10481; 89–1, July 28, 1965, pp 18578,
18580; 89–1, Oct. 13, 1965, p 26881.
134
§ 62. When Bills May Be Considered

The privilege given to general appropriation bills under the House rules
is subject to the requirement that such bills may not be considered in the
House until printed committee hearings and a committee report thereon have
been available to the Members for at least three calendar days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays if not in session). Rule XXI clause
7. Manual § 848. Other reports of the committee are governed by a similar
three-day layover requirement under Rule XI. Manual § 715. In counting the
‘‘three calendar days,’’ the date the bill is filed or the date on which it is
to be called up for consideration are counted, but not both. Manual § 848.
The three-day layover requirement may be waived by unanimous con-
sent (87–2, Sept. 12, 1962, p 19237) or pursuant to the adoption of a special
rule from the Committee on Rules (95–1, Mar. 15, 1977, p 7613).
§ 63. Debate; Consideration of Amendments

Generally; Perfecting Amendments
Amendments perfecting a general appropriation bill are considered in
the Committee of the Whole during the reading of the bill for amendment
under the five-minute rule. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a). Manual §§ 870, 872.
General appropriation bills are read for amendment by paragraph—unless a
special rule provides otherwise—whereas bills appropriating for a specific
purpose are read by sections. 4 Hinds §§ 4739, 4740; Deschler Ch 25 § 11.8.
An amendment to a paragraph in a general appropriation bill must be
offered immediately after that paragraph is read by the Clerk. 91–2, Apr.
14, 1970, p 11648. Amendments are in order only to the paragraph just
read, not to the entire subject matter under a heading in the bill. Deschler
Ch 25 § 11.9. An amendment to a paragraph which has been passed during
the reading of the bill may be offered only by unanimous consent. 92–2,
June 15, 1972, pp 21118–22; Deschler Ch 25 § 11.13. And where the Clerk
has read a paragraph in title II, an amendment to insert a new section at
the end of title I may be offered only by unanimous consent. 93–2, June
18, 1974, pp 19709, 19710.
Where an initial (sub)paragraph in a general appropriation bill appro-
priates an aggregate amount from a special fund for specific projects which
are delineated and separately funded in subsequent (sub)paragraphs, each
project will be treated as part of the entire paragraph so as to permit the
offering as one amendment of proposals to change a particular project and
to adjust the aggregate amount accordingly. 102–2, July 1, 1992, p ll,
(reversing a ruling at 98–2, Nov. 30, 1982, p 28066).
135
En Bloc Amendments
En bloc amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations among
objects in the bill and without increasing the levels of budget authority or
outlays in the bill, are in order during the reading of the bill for amendment
in the Committee of the Whole. Such amendments may amend portions of
the bill not yet read for amendment and are not subject to a demand for
division of the question. Rule XXI clause 2(f) (adopted in 1995).
Consideration in the House
Amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole are reported to
the House for action. During consideration of the bill in the House, it is
in order to demand that those amendments be voted on separately. Deschler
Ch 25 § 11.21.
§ 64. — Limitation Amendments; Retrenchments

Amendments Authorized in Existing Law
Limitation amendments ‘‘specifically contained or authorized in existing
law for the period of the limitation’’ may, pursuant to clause 2(c), Rule
XXI, be offered in the Committee of the Whole during the reading of a gen-
eral appropriation bill for amendment. See Manual § 834 (note). However,
that rule is strictly construed to apply only where existing law requires or
permits the inclusion of limiting language in an appropriation act, and not
merely where the limitation is alleged to be ‘‘consistent with existing law.’’
100–2, June 28, 1988, p 16267.
Limitation Amendments Not Authorized in Existing Law; Retrenchment
Amendments
In 1983 and in 1995, the House adopted and then modified procedures
for the consideration of retrenchment and limitation amendments: such
amendments are in order (1) only when reading of the bill has been com-
pleted and (2) only if the Committee of the Whole does not adopt a motion,
if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, to rise and report the bill
back to the House. Manual § 834f (note). Pursuant to Rule XXI clause 2(d),
a general appropriation bill must be read for amendment in its entirety (in-
cluding the short title of the bill if part of the text) before retrenchments
or amendments proposing limitations are in order; and the motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with any other
amendments already adopted then takes precedence over an amendment pro-
posing the limitation or retrenchment. 98–1, June 2, 1983, pp 14317, 14318.
Deschler Ch 26 § 1.6. Under that rule, an amendment proposing a limitation
136
not specifically contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the
limitation is not in order during the reading of the bill (99–2, July 30, 1986,
p 18214), and if offered at the completion of the reading, can be entertained
only if a preferential motion to rise and report, if offered, is rejected (99–
2, July 23, 1986, p 17431). See also 100–2, June 15, 1988, p 16267. How-
ever, the amendment with the limitation if offered first may be considered
as pending upon rejection by the Committee of the preferential motion to
rise and report. 99–1, July 30, 1985, pp 21534–36.
Unlike an amendment proposing a limitation or a retrenchment, an
amendment simply reducing an amount provided in a general appropriation
bill is not subject to the requirements of clause 2(d) of Rule XXI and need
not await the completion of the reading and the disposition of other amend-
ments or to yield to a preferential motion to rise and report. 102–2, June
30, 1992, p ll.
§ 65. Points of Order—Reserving Points of Order

Generally
Points of order may be raised in the Committee of the Whole to enforce
the requirements imposed on general appropriation bills by the House rules,
such as the prohibition against unauthorized appropriations (§§ 10–14,
supra), the restriction against legislation in general appropriation bills (§ 27,
supra) and the proscription against the inclusion of reappropriations of unex-
pended balances (§ 60, supra).
Under the former practice, points of order ordinarily had to be reserved
against a general appropriation bill at the time the bill was reported to the
House and referred to the Union Calendar, and could be reserved after the
bill had been referred to the Committee of the Whole only by unanimous
consent. Deschler Ch 25 § 12.1. Under new Rule XXI clause 8, adopted in
1995, it is no longer necessary to reserve points of order at the time the
bill is referred to the Union Calendar; Members’ rights to later raise them
are automatically protected. 104–1, Jan. 4, 1995, p ll.
Against Amendments
In the Committee of the Whole, the reservation of a point of order
against an amendment to an appropriation bill is within the discretion of the
Chair, but if permitted must be reserved before debate begins on the amend-
ment. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.2. See also POINTS OF ORDER.
137
§ 66. — Timeliness
Generally; Points of Order Against Paragraphs
A point of order against a provision in a general appropriation bill may
not be entertained during general debate but must await the reading of that
portion of the bill for amendment. 103–1, June 18, 1993, p ll. The time
for making points of order against items in an appropriation bill is after the
House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole and after the
paragraph containing such items has been read for amendment. Deschler Ch
25 § 12.8. A point of order against the paragraph on the ground that it is
legislation will not lie before the paragraph is read. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.10;
99–1, June 6, 1985, pp 14605, 14609. A point of order against two consecu-
tive paragraphs comprising a section in the bill can be made only by unani-
mous consent. Deschler Ch 25 § 12.5. The proper time to raise a point of
order against language in the paragraph is after the paragraph has been read
but before debate starts thereon. 86–2, May 24, 1960, p 10979; 95–2, June
14, 1978, pp 17624, 17626.
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 § 2; Manual § 835. A point of order against a para-
graph which has been passed in the reading for amendment may be made
only by unanimous consent. 97–2, Nov. 30, 1982, p 28066.
A point of order must be made against a paragraph after it is read and
before an amendment is offered thereto even if the amendment is ruled out
of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.21. However, the point of order is not pre-
cluded by the fact that, by unanimous consent, an amendment had been of-
fered to the paragraph before it was read. 91–1, July 31, 1969, p 21677.
Timeliness Where Bill is Considered as Having Been Read
Where a general appropriation bill or a portion thereof (a title, e.g.) is
considered as having been read and open to amendment by unanimous con-
sent, points of order against provisions therein must be made before amend-
ments are offered, and cannot be reserved pending subsequent action on
amendments. Deschler Ch 26 § 2; Manual § 835. 97–1, July 13, 1981, p
15548; 98–1, Oct. 26, 1983, pp 29409, 29410. In this situation, the Chair
first inquires whether any Member desires to raise a point of order against
any portion of the pending text, and then recognizes Members to offer
amendments to that text. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.15. A point of order comes
too late if it is made after the Chairman has asked for amendments after
having asked for points of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.16.
138
Where an appropriation bill partially read for amendment is then opened

for amendment ‘‘at any point’’ (rather than for ‘‘the remainder of the bill’’),
points of order to paragraphs already read may yet be entertained. Deschler
Ch 26 § 2.14.
Points of Order Against Amendments
Points of order against proposed amendments to a general appropriation
bill must be made or reserved immediately after the amendment is read.
After a Member has been granted time to address the Committee of the
Whole on his amendment, it is too late to make a point of order against
it. Deschler Ch 26 § 12.13.
§ 67. — Points of Order Against Particular Provisions

Generally; Against Paragraphs of Bill
Points of order against unauthorized appropriations or legislation on
general appropriation bills may be raised against an entire paragraph or a
portion only of a paragraph (4 Hinds § 3652; 5 Cannon § 6881); and the fact
that a point is made against a portion of a paragraph does not prevent an-
other point against the whole paragraph (5 Cannon § 6882; 99–1, July 31,
1985, p 21895).
Where a point of order is made against an entire paragraph in an appro-
priation bill on the ground that a portion thereof is in conflict with the rules
of the House and the point of order is sustained, the entire paragraph is
eliminated. 95–1, June 29, 1977, p 21402; Deschler Ch 26 § 2.4. Similarly,
where a point of order is made against an entire proviso on the ground that
a portion of it is subject to the point of order, and the point of order is
sustained, the entire proviso is eliminated. Deschler Ch 26 § 2.6. A point
of order, if made and sustained against a portion of a paragraph containing
legislation, is sufficient to cause the entire paragraph to be stricken even if
the remainder of the paragraph is authorized. 95–1, June 8, 1977, pp 17922,
17923. 99–1, July 31, 1985, p 21895.
Against Amendments
If any portion of an amendment to an appropriation bill constitutes leg-
islation, the entire amendment is subject to a point of order. 95–2, Aug. 7,
1978, p 24708.
A point of order against an amendment as legislation on a general ap-
propriation bill must be determined in relation to the bill in its modified
form (as affected by disposition of prior points of order). Deschler Ch 26
§ 2.24.
139
§ 68. — Waiving Points of Order

Generally; Alternative Procedures
Points of order against a general appropriation bill may be waived in
various ways:
0 By unanimous consent. Deschler Ch 26 § 31.
0 By special rule (a resolution) from the Rules Committee. 4 Hinds §§ 3260–
3263; Deschler Ch 26 § 3; Manual § 842f.
0 By motion to suspend the rules. 4 Hinds § 3845.
0 By failure to make a timely point of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 3.17.
Note: Although legislation in an appropriation bill may be
subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, if
not challenged it becomes permanent law where it is per-
manent in its language and nature. Deschler Ch 26 § 3.17.
Waiver of Points of Order By Special Rule
A waiver of points of order pursuant to a special rule from the Rules
Committee may be couched in broad terms, as where it seeks to protect the
entire bill against points of order. Deschler Ch 26 § 3.14. Or the waiver may
be confined to points of order directed at a particular title (Deschler Ch 26
§ 3.7) or a specified chapter (Deschler Ch 26 § 3.8) of the bill. A waiver
may be very limited in scope, as where it permits points of order against
portions of certain paragraphs but not against entire paragraphs. 97–1, July
10, 1981, p 15331; 97–1, July 30, 1981, p 18803.
Waiver of Particular Points of Order
The House, by adoption of a special rule from the Committee on Rules,
may waive points of order:
0 Against certain paragraphs in an appropriation bill not authorized by law
or containing legislative language. Deschler Ch 26 §§ 3.2, 3.6; 98–2,
June 27, 1984, p 19129; 98–2, July 25, 1984, pp 20979, 20981, 20989.
0 Against reappropriations in violation of clause 6 Rule XXI. 97–1, July 10,
1981, p 15331; 97–1, July 30, 1981, p 18803.
0 Against consideration of a bill containing new budget authority in excess
of allocations to subcommittees and for failure of the committee report
to contain a comparison of spending in the bill with subcommittee allo-
cations. 99–2, Apr. 22, 1986, pp 8343, 8344, 8348.
0 Against consideration of the bill until printed committee hearings and the
committee report have been available for three days (Deschler Ch 25
§ 10.3) as is required by the two layover rules of the House. 99–2, July
17, 1986, p 16680; 99–2, Aug. 1, 1986, p 18625.
Note: Both of the three-day rules apply and may need to
be waived, as the specific rule, clause 7, Rule XXI, does
140
not supersede the more general rule in clause 2(l)(6), Rule

XI, which covers all reports.
Application of Waiver to Points of Order Against Amendments
Although points of order against the particular provisions of a bill may
be waived by unanimous consent or special rule, such waiver will not pre-
clude points of order against amendments offered from the floor unless the
waiver is made specifically applicable to such amendments. Deschler Ch 26
§ 3. Thus, where a general appropriation bill is considered under terms of
a special rule waiving points of order ‘‘against said bill,’’ the waiver applies
only to the provisions of the bill and not to amendments thereto. Deschler
Ch 26 § 3.14. But a special rule waiving points of order may be drafted in
such a way as to protect a specific amendment (Deschler Ch 26 § 3.10) or
to protect ‘‘any amendment offered by direction of the Committee on Ap-
propriations.’’ Deschler Ch 26 § 3.11.
§ 69. Amending Language Permitted to Remain

When In Order
Language that has been permitted to remain in a general appropriation
bill or amendment by virtue of a waiver may be modified by a further
amendment if it is germane and does not contain additional legislation or
additional unauthorized items. 4 Hinds § 3862; 7 Cannon § 1420; Deschler
Ch 26 § 3. 90–1, Nov. 16, 1967, p 32886; 91–1, May 21, 1969, p 13271.
And where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in the bill
by failure to raise, or by waiver of, a point of order, an amendment merely
changing the amount and not adding legislative language or earmarking sep-
arate funds for another unauthorized purpose is in order. Deschler Ch 26
§ 3.38; 99–1, July 17, 1985, p 19435. However, an increase in the amount
may be vulnerable as a Budget Act violation under §§ 302 or 311 of the
Budget Act.
When Not In Order
Although legislative language in a general appropriation bill which is
permitted to remain therein because of a waiver of points of order may be
perfected by germane amendment, such an amendment may not, under Rule
XXI clause 2, add additional legislation. 4 Hinds §§ 3836, 3837; 7 Cannon
§§ 1425–1434; 101–1, Aug. 2, 1989, p ll. Nor may such an amendment
earmark funds for an unauthorized purpose (Deschler Ch 26 § 3.30) or direct
a new use of funds not required by law (Manual § 842f). The figures in an
unauthorized item permitted to remain may be perfected but the provision
may not be changed by an amendment substituting funds for a different un-
141
authorized purpose. Deschler Ch 26 § 3.45. Nor may an increase in such fig-

ure be accompanied by legislative language directing certain expenditures.
94–2, June 18, 1976, p 19297. Amendments to language permitted to remain
in an appropriation bill which have been ruled out under Rule XXI clause
2 have included:
0 An amendment adding additional legislation prohibiting the availability of
funds in other acts for certain other purposes. 93–1, Aug. 1, 1973, pp
27291, 27292.
0 An amendment adding an additional class of recipients to those covered by
a legislative provision permitted to remain. 98–1, June 22, 1983, pp
16850, 16851.
0 An amendment adding further unauthorized items of appropriation or add-
ing legislation in the form of new duties. 99–2, July 23, 1986, pp 16850,
16851.
0 An amendment broadening the application of a legislative provision per-
mitted to remain so as to apply to other funds. 100–2, June 28, 1988,
p 16212; Manual § 836.
0 An amendment adding a new paragraph in another part of the bill which
indirectly increases an unauthorized amount passed in the reading. 104–
1, July 12, 1995, p ll.
B. Senate Amendments
§ 70. In General
Senate Amendments Before Stage of Disagreement
While Rule XX clause 1 requires any Senate amendment involving a
new and distinct appropriation to be first considered in a Committee of the
Whole (Manual § 828a), the modern practice bypasses this requirement by
sending appropriation bills with Senate amendments directly to conference
either by unanimous consent or a motion under clause 1, notwithstanding
the fact that the stage of disagreement has not been reached (92–2, Aug.
1, 1972, p 26153). Thus earlier precedents (4 Hinds §§ 4797–4806; 8 Can-
non §§ 2382–2385) governing initial consideration of Senate amendments to
appropriation bills in Committee of the Whole are largely anachronistic, and
the practices discussed below regarding disposition of Senate amendments
normally involve the post-conference stage of consideration where the stage
of disagreement has been reached and motions in the House to dispose of
Senate amendments are privileged (Manual §§ 528a–d).
142
Amending Senate Amendments

A point of order under Rule XXI clause 2 does not lie against a Senate
amendment to a House general appropriation bill. See Manual §§ 829, 842g;
7 Cannon § 1572. Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation
bill proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in the
House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments. Deschler
Ch 25 § 13.13; Deschler Ch 26 § 6.1. Similarly, where the Senate attaches
a ‘‘legislative’’ amendment to the bill, it is in order in the House to concur
with a perfecting amendment provided such amendment is germane to the
Senate amendment. Deschler Ch 25 § 13.14. In amending a Senate amend-
ment the House is not confined within the limits of the amount set by the
original bill and the Senate amendment. Deschler Ch 25 § 13.15.
Amendments Reported in Disagreement
A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from conference in
disagreement (see § 71, infra) may be amended by a germane amendment
even though the proposed amendment is also legislative. Deschler Ch 26
§ 6.9; Manual § 842g. Although Rule XX clause 2 prohibits House conferees
from agreeing to a Senate amendment which proposes legislation on an ap-
propriation bill without specific authority from the House, that rule is a re-
striction upon the managers only, and does not provide for a point of order
against such amendment when it is reported in disagreement and comes up
for separate action by the House. 7 Cannon § 1572. It is customary for the
managers to report such amendments in technical disagreement; after dispos-
ing of the conference report, which includes those Senate amendments not
in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI, whether reported in technical or true dis-
agreement, are taken up in order and disposed of directly in the House by
separate motion. 7 Cannon § 1572; Manual § 829. Accordingly, where a
Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general appropriation bill is
reported back from conference in disagreement, a motion to concur in the
Senate amendment with a further amendment is in order, even if the pro-
posed amendment adds legislation to that contained in the Senate amend-
ment, and the only test is whether the proposed amendment is germane to
the Senate amendment reported in disagreement. Manual §§ 829, 842g. See
also Deschler Ch 26 § 6.5.
§ 71. Authority of Conference Managers

Generally
Under Rule XX clause 2, the managers on the part of the House may
not agree to any Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill if that
143
amendment, had it originated in the House, would have been in violation

of Rule XXI clause 2, unless such agreement is specifically authorized by
separate vote prior thereto. Since the addition of Rule XXI clauses 2(c) and
(d) in 1983, this restriction on House managers’ authority has been inter-
preted to extend to Senate amendments in the form of limitations since limi-
tation amendments are in violation of that clause unless offered at the end
of reading for amendment in Committee of the Whole. It has been the prac-
tice of the managers at a conference on a general appropriation bill to bring
Senate amendments containing limitations back to the House in technical
disagreement. The House may then dispose of them by proper motion, the
stage of disagreement having been reached.
The applicable rule also precludes House managers from agreeing in
conference to Senate appropriation amendments on any bill other than a
general appropriation bill unless authorized by separate vote. Rule XX
clause 2. Manual § 829. Under this rule, where a House legislative measure
has been committed to conference, and the conferees agree to a Senate
amendment appropriating funds, the conference report thereon may be ruled
out. Deschler Ch 25 §§ 13.8, 13.9. But a point of order against an appropria-
tion in a conference report on a legislative bill will lie under the rule only
if that provision was originally contained in a Senate amendment, and will
not lie against a provision permitted by the House to remain in its bill.
Deschler Ch 25 § 13.12. Moreover, since the rule applies only to Senate
amendments which are sent to conference, it does not apply to appropria-
tions contained in Senate legislative bills. Deschler Ch 25 § 13.11. Gen-
erally, see CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
Authorization by Special Rule
The managers on the part of the House may be authorized by special
rule reported by the Committee on Rules to agree to Senate amendments
carrying appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 2. 7 Cannon § 1577.
Where the special rule waives points of order against portions of an appro-
priation bill which are unauthorized by law, and the bill passes the House
with those provisions included, and the bill goes to conference, the con-
ferees may report back their agreement to those provisions even though they
remain unauthorized, since the waiver carries over to the consideration of
the same provisions when the conference report is before the House. Manual
§ 829 (note).
Authorization by Unanimous Consent
A Member may seek unanimous consent to send an appropriation bill
to conference and authorize the House conferees to agree to Senate legisla-
144
tive amendments notwithstanding the restrictions contained in Rule XX

clause 2. Deschler Ch 26 § 6.3. But unanimous consent merely to take from
the Speaker’s table and send to conference a bill with Senate amendments
does not waive the provisions of the rule restricting the House conferees’
authority. 7 Cannon § 1574.
VII. Nonprivileged Appropriation Measures
§ 72. In General; Continuing Appropriations

A continuing appropriations measure is legislation enacted by the Con-
gress to provide budget authority for specific ongoing federal programs
when a regular appropriation for those programs has not been enacted. See
Joint resolutions continuing appropriations pending enactment of general
appropriation bills for the ensuing fiscal year are not ‘‘general’’ appropria-
tion bills and therefore are not reported or called up as privileged (8 Cannon
§ 2282) unless reported after September 15 preceding the beginning of such
fiscal year. Rule XI clause 4(a); Manual § 726; Deschler Ch 25 § 7. Calling
up by unanimous consent or under a special rule, see § 75, infra.
A continuing resolution is not a ‘‘general appropriation bill’’ within the
meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI and is therefore not subject to its provisions.
The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation in a general appro-
priation bill or amendment thereto are not applicable to a continuing resolu-
tion despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not ‘‘continuing’’
in nature. 94–1, June 17, 1975, p 19176; Deschler Ch 26 § 1.2.
§ 73. Supplemental Appropriations

A supplemental appropriation provides budget authority in addition to
regular or continuing appropriations already made. Bills making supple-
mental appropriations for diverse agencies are considered general appropria-
tion bills and are reported as such. Deschler Ch 25 § 7.
A waiver of points of order against a supplemental appropriation bill
may be provided for by special rule from the Committee on Rules. The rule
may waive points of order against the entire bill (Deschler Ch 25 § 9.7) or
against a specific paragraph in the bill (Deschler Ch 25 § 9.6). Such a rule
has been considered and agreed to by the House even after general debate
on the bill has been concluded and reading for amendment has begun in
the Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 25 § 9.1.
145
§ 74. Appropriations for a Single Agency

A measure making an appropriation for a single department or agency
is not a ‘‘general’’ appropriation bill within the meaning of Rule XI clause
4(a) and is therefore not privileged for consideration when reported by the
Committee on Appropriations. Deschler Ch 25 §§ 7.3, 7.4; 89–1, May 5,
1965, p 9518. Moreover, because such measures are not general appropria-
tion bills, they are not subject to points of order under Rule XXI clause 2.
95–1, Feb. 3, 1977, p 3473.
§ 75. Consideration
By Special Rule, Consent, or Suspension
The consideration of nonprivileged appropriation measures may be
made in order by a special rule from the Committee on Rules. Deschler Ch
25 § 7.3. The consideration of such measures may also be made in order
by unanimous consent. 97–2, Mar. 23, 1982, p 5012; 98–2, Oct. 1, 1984,
pp 27961, 27962. Thus, a joint resolution continuing appropriations for a
fiscal year may be called up unanimous consent, even where such joint reso-
lution has been reported pursuant to the rule (Manual § 743) relating to the
filing of nonprivileged reports. Deschler Ch 25 § 8.8.
A nonprivileged appropriation bill may also be considered pursuant to
a motion to suspend the rules. Deschler Ch 25 § 13.18.
Consideration in House As In Committee of the Whole
Joint resolutions continuing appropriations pending enactment of regular
annual appropriation measures are often considered in the House as in Com-
mittee of the Whole, but are sometimes considered in Committee of the
Whole to permit more extensive general debate. Deschler Ch 25 § 6 (note).
Joint resolutions providing supplemental appropriations may also be consid-
ered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Deschler Ch 25 §§ 11.5,
11.6. Such consideration may be provided for by unanimous consent
(Deschler Ch 25 § 8.7) or pursuant to a special rule from the Committee
on Rules (Deschler Ch 25 § 8.4).
Consideration in House
Under modern practice, continuing appropriation joint resolutions are
often considered by unanimous consent or by special rule ‘‘in the House’’
under the hour rule (Deschler Ch 25 §§ 8.9–8.12), and often with the pre-
vious question considered as ordered to prevent amendment. See 102–1,
Sept. 24, 1991, p ll.
146
VIII. Appropriations in Legislative Bills

§ 76. In General
Generally
Restrictions against the inclusion of appropriations in legislative bills
are provided for by House Rule XXI clause 5(a). A bill or joint resolution
carrying appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having ju-
risdiction to report appropriations. The rule also prohibits amendments pro-
posing appropriations on a reported legislative bill. Manual § 846a. Under
this rule, a provision appropriating funds that is included in a bill reported
by a legislative committee is subject to a point of order. 7 Cannon § 2133;
Deschler Ch 25 § 4.24. But since the rule by its terms applies to appropria-
tions ‘‘reported’’ by legislative committees, the point of order does not
apply to an appropriation in a bill which has been taken away from a non-
appropriating committee by a motion to discharge. 7 Cannon § 1019a. Nor
does it apply to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
‘‘self-executing’’ the adoption to a bill of an amendment containing an ap-
propriation, since the amendment is not separately before the House during
consideration of the special order. 103–1, Feb. 24, 1993, p ll.
Application to Senate Bills or Amendments Between the Houses
The rule forbidding consideration of items carrying appropriations in
bills reported by nonappropriating committees applies to Senate bills as well
as to House bills. 7 Cannon §§ 2136, 2147. The point of order may be made
against an appropriation in a Senate bill under consideration (in lieu of a
reported House bill) even though the bill has not been reported by a com-
mittee of the House. 7 Cannon § 2137. This rule also applies to an amend-
ment proposed to a Senate amendment to a House bill not reported from
the Committee on Appropriations. 96–2, Oct. 1, 1980, pp 28638–42.
Application to Private Bills
Rule XXI clause 5(a) does not apply to private bills since the commit-
tees having jurisdiction of bills for the payment of private claims may report
bills making appropriations within the limits of their jurisdiction. 7 Cannon
§ 2135.
§ 77. What Constitutes an Appropriation in a Legislative Bill

Generally
As used in Rule XXI clause 5(a), an ‘‘appropriation’’ means taking
money out of the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the sup-
147
port of the general functions of government. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.43. Rulings

on points of order under clause 5(a) have frequently depended on whether
language allegedly making an appropriation was in fact merely language au-
thorizing an appropriation. Deschler Ch 25 § 4. Thus, a provision that dis-
bursements ‘‘shall be paid from the appropriation made to the department
for that purpose’’ was construed as an authorization merely and not an ap-
propriation, and therefore not subject to a point of order under clause 5(a).
7 Cannon § 2156.
Provisions Held In Order
Provisions in a legislative bill which have held not to violate clause 5(a)
have included:
0 Language authorizing an appropriation of not less than a certain amount for
a specified purpose. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.34.
0 Language providing that an appropriation when made should come out of
any unexpended balances heretofore appropriated or made available for
emergency purposes. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.35.
0 Language in a bill providing that all funds ‘‘available’’ for carrying out the
act ‘‘shall be available’’ for allotment to certain bureaus and offices, no
use of existing funds being permitted. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.36.
0 Language authorizing and directing an executive officer to advance, when
appropriated, sums of money out of the Treasury. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.38.
0 An authorization for the withdrawal of money from the Treasury belonging
to a governmental agency, even though it would otherwise eventually re-
vert to the government. 7 Cannon § 2158.
0 Language in a housing bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to use
proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making loans. Deschler
Ch 25 § 4.43.
Provisions Held Out of Order
Provisions reported by a legislative committee and ruled out of order
as constituting an appropriation in violation of Rule XXI clause 5(a) have
included:
0 A direction that funds previously appropriated be used for a purpose not
specified in the original appropriation. 7 Cannon § 2147.
0 Language reappropriating or diverting an appropriation for a new purpose.
7 Cannon § 2146; Deschler Ch 25 §§ 4.1, 4.4.
0 An amendment requiring the diversion of previously appropriated funds in
lieu of the enactment of new budget authority. 100–2, Aug. 10, 1988,
p 21719.
0 Language providing for the transfer of unexpended balances of appropria-
tions and making such funds available for expenditure. Deschler Ch 25
§ 4.5.
148
0 Language making available an appropriation or a portion of an appropria-

tion already made for one purpose to another (100–2, Aug. 10, 1988, p
21719), or for one fiscal year to another (102–2, Mar. 26, 1992, p ll).
0 Language providing for the collection of certain fees and authorizing the
use of the fees so collected for the purchase of certain installations.
0 An amendment establishing a user charge and making the revenues col-
lected therefrom available without further appropriation. Deschler Ch 25
§ 4.19.
0 A provision making available for administrative purposes money repaid
from advances and loans. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.21.
0 Language directing disbursements from Indian trust funds. 7 Cannon
§ 2149.
0 An amendment permitting the acquisition of buses with funds from the
highway trust fund. 92–2, Oct. 5, 1972, p 34115.
0 A provision establishing a special fund, to be available with other funds
appropriated, for the purpose of paying of refunds. 7 Cannon § 2152.
0 Language making excess foreign currencies available to stimulate private
enterprise abroad. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.22.
0 Language providing that the cost of certain surveys would be paid from
the appropriation theretofore or thereafter made for such purposes.
0 Language in a bill making available unobligated balances of appropriations
‘‘heretofore’’ made to carry out the provisions of the bill. Deschler Ch
25 § 4.11.
0 An amendment to a legislative bill waiving provisions in an appropriation
act which limited the availability of funds appropriated therein for a
specified purpose, thereby increasing the availability of appropriated
funds. 93–2, Apr. 4, 1974, pp 9846, 9847.
0 An amendment which provided for the transfer of existing federal funds
into a new Treasury trust fund and for their immediate availability for
a new purpose. 93–2, June 20, 1974, pp 20273–75.
0 Language authorizing the Treasurer to honor requisitions of the Archivist
in such manner and in accordance with such regulations as the Treasurer
might prescribe. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.15.
0 A provision in an omnibus reconciliation bill reported by the Budget Com-
mittee making a direct appropriation to carry out a part of the Energy
Security Act. 99–1, Oct. 24, 1985, p 28812.
§ 78. Points of Order; Timeliness

Generally
A point of order under clause 5 Rule XXI against an appropriation in
a bill reported by a legislative committee should be raised at the appropriate
time in Committee of the Whole and does not lie in the House prior to con-
sideration of the bill. 94–1, Sept. 10, 1975, pp 28270, 28271. The provision
149
in clause 5, that a point of order against the appropriation can be made ‘‘at
any time’’ has been interpreted to require the point of order to be raised
during the pendency of the amendment under the five-minute rule. Deschler
Ch 25 § 12.14. Such a point of order comes too late after the amendment
has been agreed to and has become part of the text of the bill, and cannot
then be raised against further consideration of the bill as amended. 94–1,
Apr. 28, 1975, p 12049.
A point of order under clause 5 applies to the appropriation against
which it is directed and not to the bill carrying it. A point of order in the
House that the bill is improperly on the Union Calendar does not lie. 7 Can-
non § 2140. The point of order should be directed to the item of appropria-
tion in the bill at the proper time and not, in the House, to the act of report-
ing the bill. 7 Cannon § 2142. It follows that motions to discharge nonappro-
priating committees from consideration of bills carrying appropriations are
not subject to points of order under the rule. 7 Cannon § 2144.
The intervention of debate or the consideration of amendments follow-
ing the reading do not preclude points of order under clause 5. Points of
order against appropriations in legislative bills may be raised even after de-
bate has taken place on the merits of the proposition. Deschler Ch 25
§ 12.15. A point of order against an amendment to a legislative bill contain-
ing an appropriation can be raised ‘‘at any time’’ during its pendency, even
in its amended form, though the point of order is against the amendment
as amended by a substitute and though no point of order was directed
against the substitute prior to its adoption. 94–1, Apr. 23, 1975, pp 11512,
11513.
Waiving Points of Order
Points of order based on clause 5 have sometimes been waived by reso-
lution. Deschler Ch 25 § 4.3. Where the House has adopted a resolution
waiving points of order against certain appropriations in a legislative bill,
a point of order may nevertheless be raised against an amendment to the
bill containing an identical provision. 94–1, Apr. 23, 1975, p 11512.
§ 79. — Directing Points of Order Against Objectionable Lan-

guage
A point of order under Rule XXI clause 5 against an appropriation in
a legislative bill should be directed against that portion of the bill (or against
the amendment thereto) in which the appropriation is contained and cannot
be directed against the consideration of the entire bill. 7 Cannon § 2142;
Deschler Ch 25 § 4.2. If such a point of order is sustained with respect to
150
a portion of a section of a legislative bill containing an appropriation, only

that portion is stricken. But if the point of order is directed against the entire
section for inclusion of that language, the entire section will be ruled out.
93–2, Apr. 4, 1974, pp 9845, 9846.
151

Gpo Hpractice 104 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gpo Hpractice 104 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gpo Hpractice 104 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appropriations

II. General Appropriation Bills

§ 25. Works in Progress

III. Legislation in General Appropriation Bills; Provisions

B. CHANGING PRESCRIBED FUNDING

C. CHANGING EXECUTIVE DUTIES OR AUTHORITY

D. THE HOLMAN RULE; RETRENCHMENTS

IV. Limitations on General Appropriation Bills

VI. Reporting; Consideration and Debate

VII. Nonprivileged Appropriation Measures

VIII. Appropriations in Legislative Bills

§ 2. Power to Originate Appropriation Bills; House and Senate

§ 3. Definitions; Kinds of Appropriation Measures

Types of Appropriation Acts

0 A special appropriation provides funds for one government agency, pro-

§ 4. Committee and Administrative Expenses

§ 5. Authorization, Appropriation, and Budget Processes Distin-

is already provided in basic law. § 9, infra. In addition some spending,

II. General Appropriation Bills

§ 7. The Restrictions of Rule XXI Clause 2

clause 2. This occurs because an appropriation made without prior authoriza-

§ 8. Committee Jurisdiction and Functions

It should be emphasized that the rule applies to ‘‘general’’ appropriation

§ 11. Duration of Authorization

§ 12. Sufficiency of Authorization

fied by both parties (4 Hinds § 3587), or in legislation contained in a pre-

Authorization From Specific Statutes or General Existing Law

Effect of Prior Unauthorized Appropriations

Incidental Expenses; Implied Authorizations

§ 13. Proof of Authorization; Burden of Proof

point of order having been raised against the appropriation. Deschler Ch 26

Evidence of Compliance With Condition

§ 14. Increasing Budget Authority

Increases in Excess of Amount Authorized

C. Authorization for Particular Purposes or Programs

0 An appropriation for liquidation of contract authority to pay costs of certain

§ 16. Agricultural Programs

0 A section providing funds to collect, compile, and analyze data relating to

§ 17. Programs Relating to Business or Commerce

§ 18. Defense Programs

Ruled Out as Unauthorized

§ 19. Funding for the District of Columbia

Ruled Out as Unauthorized

§ 20. Interior or Environmental Programs

0 Language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, in administering the Bu-

§ 21. Programs Relating to Foreign Affairs

Ruled Out as Unauthorized

0 An appropriation for the salary of a particular U.S. minister to a foreign

§ 22. Legislative Branch Funding

Ruled Out as Unauthorized

§ 23. Salaries and Related Benefits

0 An amendment appropriating funds for salaries and expenses of additional

D. Authorization for Public Works

§ 25. Works in Progress

§ 26. — What Constitutes a Work in Progress

III. Legislation in General Appropriation Bills; Provisions

ing law (§ 28, infra), to a provision making changes in court interpretations

§ 28. Changing Existing Law by Amendment, Enactment, or Re-