H.R.5749 - Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008

To provide for a program of emergency unemployment compensation. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 as reported to house.
  • Official: To provide for a program of emergency unemployment compensation. as introduced.
  • Popular: Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 as passed house.

Comments Feed

Displaying 9421-9450 of 26936 total comments.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:15pm

    If you’re not thrilled with your career, if you don’t wake up excited about the day’s prospects, or if you feel that your work has no intrinsic value, then it’s time to get serious about making a change.
    Knowing a Good Fit
    The right career is a positive, productive and natural extension of you, your value system and your natural talents. The right career “fits”; it may not come effortlessly, but it does come naturally. It provides you with purpose, a positive self image and a sense of pride.
    Just like finding your ideal mate, finding your ideal career has a lot to do with compatibility on many different levels. Your career must be a comfortable match with your personality, lifestyle, interests, skills, spiritual inclinations and values.
    Signs of a Bad Fit
    You know you’re in the wrong career if:
    · It is strictly a means to put food on the table
    · It’s just some job you took 10 years ago because, at the time, it was the only one you could find.
    · Your parents are proud, but you’re bored to tears.
    · Your job makes you unhappy, damages your self-esteem, compromises your values, or undermines your integrity.
    · You live for the weekend.
    Assess Yourself
    Here’s another checklist to help you assess your current employment situation. Check the statements that apply to you (and ignore for now the letter after each statement):
    1. I look forward to going to work most every day. (S)
    2. My employer treats me fairly and with respect. (S)
    3. I live for the weekend, or any days away from work. (G)
    4. I feel valued and appreciated for my professional contributions. (S)
    5. My workplace feels “toxic.” (G)
    6. I can be myself at work and not have to worry about being judged. (S)
    7. I am included in my company’s “information loop.” (S)
    8. My employer discusses with me and provides opportunities for advancement and professional development. (S)
    9. I am commended for the extra effort I perform. (S)
    10. I am stimulated intellectually and creatively by my work. (S)
    11. I feel that I am making a positive contribution to society. (S)
    12. I am compensated well for my work. (S)
    13. I find myself daydreaming frequently about a new career. (G)
    14. I feel that my work is a natural extension of who I am as a human being. (S)
    15. I see myself as successful. (S)
    16. I feel trapped and stuck in my current position. (G)
    17. I feel in control of my career destiny. (S)
    18. I am working at the level of my full potential. (S)
    19. My current career negatively impacts those close to me. (G)
    20. I have a desire to try something new and different. (G)
    Now, count the number of “S” and “G” responses you have. “S” means “Stay” and “G” means “Go.” This checklist is a reliable indicator of whether or not your present job is a good fit for you. Clearly, the more “G” (“Go”) responses you checked, the more critical it is for you to start thinking about new opps.
    Dissatisfaction on the job is common and often temporary. But not many people take time to analyze what makes a job miserable, and how to fix it.
    Fortunately Patrick Lencioni has done much of that work in his book “The Three Signs of a Miserable Job.”
    Job Misery Is Universal
    The author notes that a “miserable” job differs from a “bad” job, as one person’s dream job may not appeal to another worker. A miserable job, however, has some universal traits.
    “A miserable job makes a person cynical and frustrated and demoralized when they go home at night,” Lencioni says. “It drains them of their energy, their enthusiasm, and self-esteem. Miserable jobs can be found in every industry and at every level.”
    Lencioni blames much of the problem on managers, who are a key factor in the job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of their employees. A recent Yahoo! HotJobs survey points to a similar conclusion: 43% of workers said discontent with their boss was the main reason they planned to look for a new job in 2008.
    The Three Signs
    Lencioni identifies the three signs of job misery as anonymity, irrelevance, and “immeasurement.”
    Anonymity: Employees feel anonymous when their manager has little interest in them as people with unique lives, aspirations, and interests.
    Irrelevance: This condition occurs when workers cannot see how their job makes a difference. “Every employee needs to know that the work they do impacts someone’s life — a customer, a coworker, even a supervisor — in one way or another.”
    Immeasurement: This term describes the inability of employees to assess for themselves their contributions or success. As a result they often rely on the opinions of others — usually the manager — to measure their success.
    Three Remedies for Job Misery
    For workers who may be experiencing the signs of job misery, Lencioni recommends three steps to improve the boss-employee dynamic and enhance job satisfaction.
    1. Assess your manager. Is the boss interested in and capable of addressing the three factors mentioned above? “Most managers really do want to improve, in spite of the fact that they may seem disinterested or too busy,” Lencioni says.
    2. Help your manager understand what you need. This could mean reviewing with your manager what the key measurements for success are for your job. Lencioni also suggests asking your boss, “Can you help me understand why this work I’m doing makes a difference to someone?”
    3. Act more like the manager you want. “Employees who take a greater interest in the lives of their managers are bound to infect them with the same kind of human interest they seek,” the author says. Or find ways to let your manager know how his or her performance makes a positive difference for you.
    Be Realistic
    Richard Phillips, founder of Career Advantage Solutions, agrees that “managing up” is a good way to improve job satisfaction, but he cautions employees to be realistic in their expectations.
    “Managers are not mind readers,” he says. “Take the responsibility to communicate upon yourself, and remember there has to be an ongoing dialogue, or change is unlikely to happen.”

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:19pm

    The budget resolution, in part, sets total new budget authority and outlay levels
    for each fiscal year covered by the resolution. It also distributes federal spending
    among 20 functional categories (such as national defense, agriculture, and
    transportation) and sets similar levels for each function.
    Within each chamber, the total new budget authority and outlays for each fiscal
    year are also distributed among committees with jurisdiction over spending, thereby
    setting spending ceilings for each committee (see “Allocations” section below).10
    The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations receive ceilings only for the
    upcoming fiscal year, because appropriations measures are annual. Once the
    appropriations committees receive their spending ceilings, they separately distribute
    the funding among their respective subcommittees, providing spending ceilings for
    each subcommittee. Congress annually considers several appropriations measures, which provide
    funding for numerous activities, for example, national defense, education, homeland
    security, crime, as well as general government operations. Congress has developed
    certain rules and practices for the consideration of appropriations measures, referred
    to as the congressional appropriations process.
    Appropriations measures are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees. These measures provide only about 40% of total federal
    spending for a fiscal year. The House and Senate legislative committees control the
    rest.
    There are three types of appropriations measures. Regular appropriations bills
    provide most of the funding that is provided in all appropriations measures for a
    fiscal year, and must be enacted by October 1 of each year. If regular bills are not
    enacted by the deadline, Congress adopts continuing resolutions to continue funding
    generally until regular bills are enacted. Supplemental appropriations bills provide
    additional appropriations and are typically considered later.
    Each year Congress considers a budget resolution that, in part, sets spending
    ceilings for the upcoming fiscal year. Both the House and Senate have established
    parliamentary rules that may be used to enforce certain spending ceilings associated
    with the budget resolution during consideration of appropriations measures in the
    House and Senate, respectively.
    Congress has also established an authorization-appropriation process that
    provides for two separate types of measures — authorization bills and appropriation
    bills. These measures perform different functions and are to be considered in
    sequence. First, authorization bills establish, continue, or modify agencies or
    programs. Second, appropriations measures may provide spending for the agencies
    and programs previously authorized.
    Congress annually considers several appropriations measures, which provide
    funding for numerous activities, such as national defense, education, homeland
    security, crime, and general government operations. These measures are considered
    by Congress under certain rules and practices, referred to as the congressional
    appropriations process. This report discusses the following aspects of this process:
    ! annual appropriations cycle;
    ! appropriations measures (types);
    ! spending ceilings for appropriations associated with the annual
    budget resolution; and
    ! relationship between authorization and appropriation measures.
    When considering appropriations measures, Congress is exercising the power
    granted to it under the Constitution, which states, “No money shall be drawn from
    the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”1 The power to
    appropriate is a legislative power. Congress has enforced its prerogatives with laws
    setting limits on U.S. government officials. A U.S. government employee, for
    example, may not commit the government to spend more than the amount
    appropriated by law and may not make such government funding obligations before
    an appropriation funding those activities becomes law, unless such action is
    statutorily authorized.2 An appropriation may be used only for the programs and
    activities for which Congress made the appropriation, except as otherwise provided
    by law.3
    The President has an important role in the appropriations process by virtue of
    his constitutional power to approve or veto entire measures, unless Congress
    overrides a veto. He also has influence, in part, because of various duties imposed
    by statute, such as submitting an annual budget to Congress.
    The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have jurisdiction over the
    annual appropriations measures. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, both
    committees reorganized their subcommittees. Each committee now has 12
    subcommittees and each subcommittee has jurisdiction over an annual
    appropriations measure that provides funding for departments and agencies under the
    subcommittee’s jurisdiction.4
    The jurisdictions of these House and Senate appropriations subcommittees are
    generally parallel. That is, each House appropriations subcommittee is paired with
    a Senate appropriations subcommittee and the two subcommittees’ jurisdictions are
    generally identical.
    The President initiates the appropriations process by submitting his annual
    budget for the upcoming fiscal year5 to Congress. He is required to submit his annual
    budget on or before the first Monday in February.6 Congress has, however, provided
    deadline extensions; both statutorily and, sometimes, informally.7
    The President recommends spending levels for various programs and agencies
    of the federal government in the form of budget authority (or BA) because Congress
    provides budget authority instead of cash to agencies. Budget authority is the
    authority provided by federal law to incur financial obligations that will result in
    immediate or future expenditures (or outlays) involving federal funds. Examples of
    financial obligations include entering into contracts to build a submarine or purchase
    supplies. The resulting outlays are payments from the Treasury, usually in the form
    of checks or electronic funds transfers.
    An FY2006 appropriations act, for example, provided $1.6 billion in new
    budget authority for FY2006 to the Department of Defense (DOD) to build a nuclear
    attack submarine. That is, the act gave DOD legal authority to sign contracts to build
    the submarine. The department could not commit the government to pay more than
    $1.6 billion. The outlays occur when government payments are made to the
    contractor.
    An appropriation is a type of budget authority that not only provides the
    authority to make obligations, but also gives the agency legal authority to make the
    subsequent payments from the Treasury. Appropriations must be obligated in the
    fiscal year(s) for which they are provided. Appropriations measures provide new
    budget authority (as opposed to previously enacted budget authority).
    Not all new budget authority provided for a fiscal year is expended that year.
    For example, in the case of construction projects, the outlays may occur over several
    years as various stages of the project are completed.
    In other cases, such as federal employee salaries, the outlays may occur in the same
    fiscal year for which the appropriations are provided.
    As Congress considers appropriations measures providing new budget authority
    for a particular fiscal year, discussions on the resulting outlays only involve
    estimates. Data on the actual outlays for a fiscal year are not available until the fiscal

    The budget resolution is never sent to the President, nor does it become law. It
    does not provide budget authority or raise or lower revenues; instead, it is a guide for
    the House and Senate as they consider various budget-related bills, including
    appropriations and tax measures. Both the House and Senate have established
    parliamentary rules to enforce some of these spending ceilings when appropriations
    measures are considered on the House or Senate floor, respectively. (For more
    details, see “Spending Ceilings for Appropriations Measures” section below).
    The Congressional Budget Act provides an April 15 deadline for final
    congressional adoption of the budget resolution. However, during the 31 fiscal years
    Congress has considered budget resolutions (FY1976-FY2006), Congress frequently
    did not meet this deadline. For three of those years (FY1999, FY2003, and FY2005),
    Congress never completed a budget resolution.11
    While there is no penalty if the budget resolution is not completed or is tardy,
    there may be significant difficulties. First, certain enforceable spending ceilings
    associated with the budget resolution are not established until the budget resolution
    is completed. Second, under the Congressional Budget Act, the Senate can not
    consider appropriations legislation for the upcoming fiscal year until (1) Congress
    completes the budget resolution and (2) Senate Committee on Appropriations
    receives its spending allocations. Furthermore, a three-fifths vote of all Senators (60
    Senators, if there are no vacancies) is required in the Senate to waive this rule or
    appeal the presiding officer’s ruling on a point of order under this rule.12
    The Congressional Budget Act prohibits House consideration of appropriations
    measures for the first fiscal year of the budget resolution until Congress completes
    the budget resolution. But, it provides an exception. Even if the budget resolution
    is not in place, the House may begin considering most appropriations measures13 after
    May 15. No similar exception exists in the Senate.
    If Congress delays completion of the annual budget resolution (or does not
    complete the resolution), each chamber may adopt a deeming resolution to address
    these procedural difficulties.14
    the House of Representatives initiated consideration of
    appropriations measures and the Senate subsequently amended the House-passed
    bills. For the FY1998 through FY2005 regular appropriations bills,15 the Senate
    appropriations subcommittees and committee did not generally wait for the House
    bill; instead, they reported original Senate bills. Under this non-traditional approach,
    both House and Senate appropriations committees and their subcommittees were
    often considering the regular bills simultaneously. The Senate returned to the
    traditional practice, however, for the FY2006 and FY2007 regular appropriations
    bills.
    The House Committee on Appropriations reports the 12 regular appropriations
    bills separately to the full House. The committee begins reporting the bills in May
    or June, completing all or almost all of them by July or the annual August recess.
    Generally, the full House begins consideration of the regular appropriations bills in
    May or June as well, passing most by July or the recess.
    For FY2006 and FY2007, the Senate appropriations committee reported all or
    almost all of the House-passed bills, with its amendments, before the August recess.
    For FY2006, the Senate passed about half of the bills before the August recess and
    the remaining bills in September and October.16
    For half of the past 10 years (FY1998-FY2007), neither chamber passed all the
    regular appropriations bills.17 The regular bills that did not pass were generally
    funded in omnibus appropriations measures (see “Regular Appropriations Bills”
    section below).18
    During the fall, the appropriations committees are usually heavily involved in
    conferences to resolve differences between the two chambers. Relatively little or no
    time is left before the fiscal year begins to resolve what may be wide disparities
    between the House and Senate, to say nothing of those between Congress and the
    President. Congress is usually faced with the need to enact one or more temporary
    continuing resolutions pending the final disposition of the regular appropriations
    bills.19
    After the President submits his budget, the House and Senate appropriations
    subcommittees hold hearings on the segments of the budget under their jurisdiction.
    They focus on the details of the agencies’ justifications, primarily obtaining
    testimony from agency officials.
    After the hearings have been completed and the House and Senate
    appropriations committees have generally received their spending ceilings, the
    subcommittees begin to mark up20 the regular bills under their jurisdiction and report
    them to their respective full committees. Under the traditional practice, which the
    Senate resumed for the FY2006 and FY2007 regular bills, each Senate subcommittee
    would wait to amend the House-passed bill. Both appropriations committees
    consider each of their subcommittee’s recommendations separately. The committees
    may adopt amendments to a subcommittee’s recommendations and then report the
    bill as amended to their respective floors for action.
    After the House or Senate appropriations committee reports an appropriations
    bill to the House or Senate, respectively, the bill is brought to the floor. At this point,
    Representatives or Senators are generally provided an opportunity to propose floor
    amendments to the bill.
    Prior to floor consideration of a regular appropriations bill, the House
    generally considers a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules setting
    parameters for floor consideration of the bill.21 If the House adopts the special rule,
    it usually considers the appropriations bill immediately.
    The House considers the bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the State
    of the Union (or Committee of the Whole) of which all Representatives are
    members.22 A special rule on an appropriations bill usually provides for one hour of
    general debate on the bill. The debate includes opening statements by the chair and
    ranking minority member23 of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over
    the regular bill, as well as other interested Representatives.
    After the Committee of the Whole debates the bill, it considers amendments.
    A regular appropriations bill is generally read for amendment, by paragraph.24
    Amendments must meet requirements of theHouse standing rules and precedents, for example, amendments must
    be germane to the bill;
    ! congressional budget process (see “Spending Ceilings for
    Appropriations Measures” section below);
    ! authorization-appropriation process, which enforces the relationship
    between authorization and appropriation measures (see
    “Relationship Between the Authorization and Appropriation
    Measures” section below); and
    ! special rule providing for consideration of the particular bill.
    If an amendment violates any of these requirements, any Representative may raise
    a point of order to that effect. If the presiding officer rules the amendment out of
    order, it cannot be considered on the House floor. The special rule may waive any
    of these requirements, thereby allowing the House to consider the amendment.
    During consideration of individual regular appropriations bills, the House
    sometimes sets additional parameters, either by adopting a special rule or by
    unanimous consent. That is, the House agrees to the new parameters only if no
    Representative objects. For example, the House sometimes agrees to limit debate on
    individual amendments by unanimous consent.
    After the Committee of the Whole completes consideration of the measure, it
    rises (dissolves) and reports the bill with any adopted amendments to the full House.
    The House then votes on the adopted amendments and passage. After House
    passage, the bill is sent to the Senate.
    Senate. The full Senate considers the bill as reported by its appropriations
    committee.25 The Senate does not utilize the device of a special rule to set
    parameters for consideration of bills. Before taking up the bill, however, or during
    its consideration, the Senate sometimes sets parameters by unanimous consent.
    When the bill is brought up on the floor, the chair and ranking minority member
    of the appropriations subcommittee make opening statements on the contents of the
    bill as reported.
    Committee and floor amendments to the reported bills must meet requirements
    under the Senate standing rules and precedents, congressional budget process,
    authorization-appropriation process, as well as requirements agreed to by unanimous
    consent. The specifics of the Senate and House requirements differ, including the
    waiver procedures. The Senate, in contrast to the House, does not consider floor amendments in the
    order of the bill. Senators may propose amendments to any portion of the bill at any
    time unless the Senate agrees to set limits. Generally, members of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees
    having jurisdiction over a particular regular appropriations bill, and the chair and
    ranking minority members of the full committees meet to negotiate over differences
    between the House- and Senate-passed bills.27
    Under House and Senate rules, the negotiators (or conferees or managers) are
    generally required to remain within the scope of the differences between the positions
    of the two chambers.28 Their agreement must be within the range established by the
    House- and Senate-passed versions. For example, if the House-passed bill
    appropriates $3 million for a program and a separate Senate amendment provides $5
    million, the conferees must reach an agreement that is within the $3-$5 million range.
    However, these rules are not always followed.29
    The Senate typically passes a single substitute amendment to each House bill.
    In such instances, the conferees must reach agreement on all points of difference
    between the House and Senate versions before reporting the conference report in
    agreement to both houses. When this occurs, the conferees propose a new conference
    substitute for the bill as a whole. The conferees attach a joint explanatory statement
    (or managers’ statement) explaining the new substitute.
    Usually, the House considers conference reports on appropriations measures
    first because it traditionally considers the measures first. The first house to consider
    a conference report has the option of voting to recommit the report to the conference
    for further consideration, rejecting the conference report, or adopting it. After the
    first house adopts the conference report, the conference is automatically disbanded;
    therefore, the second house has two options — adopt or reject the conference report.
    Conference reports cannot be amended in either the House or Senate.
    If the conference report is rejected, or is recommitted by the first house, the
    conferees negotiate further over the matters in dispute between the two houses.30 The measure cannot be sent to the President until both houses have agreed to the entire
    text of the bill. After Congress sends the bill to the President, he has 10 days to sign or veto the
    measure. If he takes no action, the bill automatically becomes law at the end of the
    10-day period. Conversely, if he takes no action when Congress has adjourned, he
    may pocket veto the bill.
    If the President vetoes the bill, he sends it back to Congress. Congress may
    override the veto by a two-thirds vote in both houses. If Congress successfully
    overrides the veto, the bill becomes law. If Congress is unsuccessful, the bill dies.
    There are three major types appropriations measures: regular appropriations
    bills, continuing resolutions, and supplementals. Of the three types, regular
    appropriations bills typically provide most of the funding. The House and Senate annually consider several regular appropriations
    measures. Each House and Senate appropriations subcommittee has jurisdiction over
    one regular bill. Due to the House and Senate appropriations committees’ recent
    reorganization, therefore, each chamber will consider 12 regular bills.
    Regular appropriations bills contain a series of unnumbered paragraphs with
    headings; each is generally an account. The basic unit of appropriation is the
    account. Under these measures, funding for each department and large independent
    agency is distributed among several accounts. Each account, generally, includes
    similar programs, projects, or items, such as a “research and development” account
    or “salaries and expenses” account. For small agencies, a single account may fund
    all of the agency’s activities. These acts typically provide a lump-sum amount for
    each of these accounts. A few accounts include a single program, project, or item,
    which the appropriations acts fund individually.
    In report language,32 the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    provide more detailed directions to the department and agencies on the distribution
    of funding among various activities funded within an account. Funding for most
    local projects are included in report language, as opposed to the text of the
    appropriations bill. Appropriations measures may also provide transfer authority.33 Transfers shift
    budget authority from one account or fund to another. For example, if the DOD
    moved budget authority from the “Aircraft Procurement, Navy” account to the
    “Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy” account, that would be a transfer. Agencies
    are prohibited from making such transfers without statutory authority.
    In contrast, agencies may generally shift budget authority from one activity to
    another within an account without such statutory authority; this activity is referred
    to as reprogramming.34 The appropriations subcommittees have established
    notification and other oversight procedures for the various agencies to follow
    regarding reprogramming actions. Generally, these procedures differ with each
    subcommittee.
    Congress has traditionally considered and approved each regular appropriations
    bill separately, but Congress has recently combined bills together. For 18 of the past
    31 years (FY1977-FY2007), Congress packaged two or more regular appropriations
    bills together in one measure, or, in the case of FY2001, into two measures.35 These
    packages are referred to as omnibus measures or mini-bus measures.36
    In these cases, Congress typically began consideration of each regular bill
    separately, but generally in conference combined some of the bills together. During
    conference on a single regular appropriations bill, the conferees typically included
    in the conference report final agreements on other outstanding regular appropriations
    bills, thereby creating an omnibus or minibus appropriations measure.
    Packaging, was used for nine consecutive fiscal years beginning for FY1980. The first two of those years (FY1980-FY1981) occurred while President Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and the remaining seven were during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Since that time, it has been used nine times —five during President William Jefferson Clinton’s presidency (FY1996-FY1997 and FY1999-FY2001) and four while President George W. Bush has been in the White
    House (FY2003-FY2005 and FY2007).
    In two of the years (FY1987 and FY1988) during Ronald Reagan’s presidency,
    all the bills were enacted together, and in two years (FY2003 and FY2007) while
    President George W. Bush has been in the White House, all but two bills were
    enacted together. (From FY1977 through FY2005, Congress annually considered 13
    regular appropriations bills and, for FY2006 and FY2007, Congress generally
    considered 11 regular bills.)37
    Packaging regular appropriations bills can be an efficient means of resolving
    outstanding differences within Congress and between Congress and the President.
    The negotiators can make more convenient trade-offs between issues among several
    bills. During the 2005 reorganization of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
    the House committee reduced the number of its subcommittees from 13 to 10 and the Senate
    committee reduced its number from 13 to 12. The full House committee had jurisdiction
    over one bill. The House, therefore, initially considered 11 regular bills and the Senate
    considered 12. During consideration of the appropriations bills, the Senate combined two
    bills, resulting in 11 regular bills. Regular appropriations bills expire at the end of the fiscal year. If action on one
    or more regular appropriations measures has not been completed by the deadline, the
    agencies funded by these bills must cease nonessential activities due to lack of budget
    authority. Traditionally, continuing appropriations have been used to maintain
    temporary funding to agencies and programs until the regular bills are enacted. Such
    appropriations continuing funding are usually provided in a joint resolution, hence
    the term continuing resolution (or CR).
    In November and again in December 1995, FY1996 continuing resolutions
    expired and some regular appropriations bills had not been enacted. As a result,
    nonessential activities that would have been funded in those regular bills stopped and
    federal workers hired to perform those services did not report for duty.
    In 26 of the past 31 years (FY1977-FY2007), Congress and the President did not
    complete action on a majority of the regular bills by the start of the fiscal year .
    In eight years, they did not finish any of the bills by the deadline. They
    completed action on all the bills on schedule only four times: FY1977, FY1989,
    FY1995, and FY1997.
    On or before the deadline, Congress and the President generally complete action
    on an initial continuing resolution that temporarily funds the outstanding regular
    appropriations bills. In contrast to funding practices in regular bills (i.e., providing
    appropriations for each account), temporary continuing resolutions generally provide
    funding by a rate and/or formula. Recently, the continuing resolutions have generally
    provided a rate at the levels provided in the previous fiscal year. The initial CR
    typically provides temporary funding until a specific date or until the enactment of
    the applicable regular appropriations acts, if earlier. Once the initial CR becomes
    law, additional interim continuing resolutions are frequently utilized to sequentially
    extend the expiration date. These subsequent continuing resolutions sometimes
    change the funding methods. Over the past 31 fiscal years, Congress has approved,
    on average, four continuing resolutions each year
    Congress frequently considers one or more supplemental appropriations
    measures for a fiscal year that provide additional funds for specified activities.
    Supplementals may provide funding for unforeseen needs (such as funds to recover
    from a hurricane, earthquake or flood); or increase or provide funding for other
    activities. These measures, like regular appropriations bills, provide specific
    amounts of funding for individual accounts in the bill. Sometimes Congress includes
    supplemental appropriations in regular bills and continuing resolutions.
    During a calendar year, Congress typically considers, at least
    ! 12 regular appropriations bills for the fiscal year that begins on
    October 1;
    ! several continuing resolutions for the same fiscal year; and
    ! one or more supplementals for the previous fiscal year. Congress established the congressional budget process through which it
    annually sets spending ceilings associated with the budget resolution and enforces
    those ceilings with parliamentary rules, or points of order, during congressional
    consideration of appropriations billsAs mentioned previously, within each chamber, the total budget authority and
    outlays included in the annual budget resolution are distributed among the House and
    Senate committees with jurisdiction over spending, including the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations. Through this allocation process, the budget
    resolution sets total spending ceilings for each House and Senate committee (referred
    to as the 302(a) allocations).39 providing 302(a) allocations to the House
    Committee on Appropriations for FY2006.
    includes allocations for discretionary spending and mandatory
    spending. Congress divides budget authority and the resulting outlays into two
    categories: discretionary spending and mandatory spending (including net interest40).
    Discretionary spending is controlled by the annual appropriations acts, which are
    under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In
    contrast, mandatory spending is controlled by authorization (or legislative) acts under
    the jurisdiction of the authorization (or legislative) committees (principally the House
    Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance).41
    Appropriations measures include all the discretionary spending and some of the
    mandatory spending.
    Discretionary spending provides funds for a wide variety of activities, such as
    those described in the “Introduction” above, whereas mandatory spending primarily
    funds entitlement programs42 as well as other mandatory spending programs. Of total
    actual outlays for FY2006, only 38% was discretionary spending; the remaining 62%
    was mandatory spending (9% was net interest).
    Regarding the distribution of discretionary spending outlays for FY2006, 51%
    of the outlays was for defense activities, 45% for domestic activities, and 4% for
    international activities.
    The mandatory spending provided in appropriations measures is predominantly
    for entitlement programs, referred to as appropriated entitlements. Appropriated
    entitlements are funded through a two-step process. First, authorizing legislation
    becomes law that sets program parameters (through eligibility requirements and
    benefit levels, for example); then the appropriations committees must provide the
    budget authority needed to meet the commitment. The appropriations committees
    have little control over the amount of budget authority provided, since the amount
    needed is the result of previously enacted commitments in legislative law.43
    Instead of directly controlling outlays, Congress controls discretionary spending
    by setting levels of new budget authority for specific activities, programs, and
    agencies in annual appropriations measures. Congress could have, for example,
    provided $2.6 billion in new budget authority to build the nuclear attack submarine,
    mentioned earlier, instead of $1.6 billion.
    Congress also controls mandatory spending by controlling budget authority. It
    does not, however, generally control this form of budget authority by setting specific
    spending levels. It controls mandatory spending by establishing parameters for
    government commitments in permanent law, such as Social Security benefit levels
    and eligibility requirements.
    After the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations receive their 302(a)
    allocations, they separately divide their allocations among their subcommittees,
    providing each subcommittee with a ceiling. These subdivisions are referred to as
    the 302(b) allocations.44 providing the House Committee on Appropriations’
    initial 302(b) allocations of discretionary, mandatory, and total spending for FY2006.
    Making 302(b) allocations is within the jurisdiction of the House and Senate
    appropriations committees, and they typically make revisions to reflect action on the
    appropriations bills. The spending ceilings associated with the annual budget resolution that apply
    to appropriations measures are generally for a single fiscal year (the upcoming fiscal
    year), since appropriations measures are annual.45 If the budget resolution is
    significantly delayed (or is never completed), there are no total spending ceilings,
    302(a) allocations, or 302(b) allocations to enforce until the budget resolution is
    completed. In such instances, the House and Senate have often adopted separate
    deeming resolutions providing, at least, temporary 302(a) allocations, thereby,
    establishing some enforceable spending ceilings.46
    Since Congress was not expected to adopt a FY2007 budget resolution, both the
    House and Senate adopted separate deeming resolutions last year. The House
    adopted a special rule47 that, in part, deemed the House-adopted FY2007 budget
    resolution48 and accompanying committee report in effect for enforcement purposes.
    As a result, the FY2007 total spending ceilings and 302(a) allocations (and therefore,
    subsequent 302(b) allocations) are in effect.49 The Senate included in a FY2006
    supplemental appropriations act a deeming provision that, in part, set FY2007 302(a)
    allocations for the Senate Committee on Appropriations Certain spending ceilings associated with the budget resolution are enforced
    through points of order raised on the House and Senate floors when the
    appropriations measures are considered. These points of order are not self-enforcing.
    A Representative or Senator must raise a point of order that a measure, amendment,
    or conference report violates a specific rule. Generally, if a Member raises a point
    of order below and the presiding officer rules that the measure, amendment, or
    conference report violates the parliamentary rule, it may not be considered on the
    floor. Two Congressional Budget Act points of order, 302(f) and 311(a),51
    as well as a separate order in the House52 are available to enforce certain spending
    ceilings associated with the annual budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Act
    points of order apply to committee-reported appropriations bills,53 certain nonreported
    appropriations bills,54 amendments, and conference reports to these
    measures; they do not apply to appropriations bills amended on the floor. The
    separate order, however, provides a procedure to enforce the 302(b) ceilings for
    certain amended appropriations measures during the 110th Congress.
    The 302(f) point of order prohibits floor consideration of such legislation55 and
    conference reports that provide budget authority exceeding the committee or
    subcommittee allocations of new budget authority (the 302(a) or 302(b) allocations,
    respectively). In effect, this point of order applies to total discretionary spending
    (and any mandatory spending changes initiated on the appropriations measures).56
    For example, the reported FY2006 Agriculture regular appropriations bill could not
    have exceeded the Agriculture subcommittee’s total discretionary spending allocation
    for FY2006 — $16.832 billion
    These refer to sections 302(f) and 311(a), respectively, of the Congressional Budget Act
    (see also, section 403 of H.Res. 6 (110th Cong.).
    52 A separate order is a provision that is not a part of the House Standing Rules, but is
    provided under the rulemaking authority of the House. Section 511(a)(5) of H.Res. 6 (110th
    Cong.) established the separate order, which is identical to a separate order established in
    the previous Congress (section 2 of H.Res. 248 (109th Cong.).
    53 The House Committee on Appropriations almost always reports regular and major
    supplemental appropriations bills. It, however, does not generally report continuing
    resolutions.
    54 If a special rule expedites consideration of a measure by ordering the previous question
    directly to passage, the form of the measure considered is subject to the points of order.
    Some continuing resolutions are considered by this procedure.
    55 In this context, legislation refers the committee-reported and non-committee reported bills
    as well as amendments to those bills. This definition contrasts with “legislation” as it is
    defined for purposes of the authorization-appropriation process (see “Relationship Between
    Authorization and Appropriation Measures” below).
    56 It does not affect increased mandatory spending that the appropriators are required to
    provide. For example, if the House Committee on Appropriations is required to increase
    new budget authority for unemployment compensation due to a recession, such budget
    authority would not be subject to the point of order.
    57 Although the 302(f) point of order in the House enforces new budget authority ceilings,
    under House rules certain offset amendments must remain within the total new budget
    authority and outlay levels provided in the bill. Due to the 302(f) point of order, Members
    frequently must decrease budget authority in a bill for certain activities in order to finance
    increases in funding for other activities in order to stay within the 302(a) or 302(b)
    allocations (the decreases are referred to as offsets.) An amendment providing both the
    increases and decreases is referred to as an offset amendment. Frequently, the increases and
    offsets Members prefer are not located in the same place in the bill, and the affected
    segments would normally be considered at different times on the House floor.
    Offset amendments that amend the text of the bill in more than one place must remain
    within the total new budget authority and outlay levels provided in the bill (House Rule
    The 311(a) point of order prohibits floor consideration of such legislation or
    conference reports that would exceed the total new budget authority or outlay ceilings
    in the budget resolution. As Congress acts on various spending bills for a fiscal year,
    the amount of total new budget authority and the resulting outlays accumulate and
    the budget resolution ceilings are eventually reached. An appropriations bill that
    would go over either ceiling is subject to the 311(a) point of order. If all spending
    bills stay within the applicable committee spending ceilings, a bill will not exceed the
    total ceilings established in the budget resolution. However, in the past, some
    funding bills have exceeded their committee ceilings, thereby making the last
    spending bills considered subject to the 311(a) point of order. In the House, the
    Fazio Exception58 exempts certain appropriations from the 311(a) point of order. If
    the House Committee on Appropriations does not exceed its total committee
    allocations, then the appropriations measures, amendments, and conference reports
    are exempt from the 311(a) point of order.59
    For the 110th Congress, the separate order extends enforcement of 302(b)
    allocations to appropriations bills amended in the Committee of the Whole.60
    Regular appropriations bills and major supplemental appropriations measures are
    typically considered for amendment in the Committee of the Whole. The order
    generally establishes a point of order in the Committee of the Whole against a motion
    to rise and report to the House an appropriations bill that, as amended, exceeds the
    applicable 302(b) allocation in new budget authority. If the Presiding Officer
    sustains a point of order against such a motion, the bill does not fall or automatically
    remain in the Committee of the Whole; instead, the Committee of the Whole decides,
    by a vote, whether to adopt the motion even though the amended measure exceeds
    the allocation.61 An offset amendment added at the end of a bill that indirectly effects
    earlier provisions in the bill would not fall under the procedure provided in Rule XXI,
    clause 2(f). However it would still be subject to requirements in section 302. That is, it may
    not cause the bill to exceed new budget authority allocations made pursuant to 302(a) or (b).
    (For more information, see CRS Report RL31055, House Offset Amendments to
    Appropriations Bills: Procedural Considerations, by Sandy Streeter.)
    58 The title of the exception refers to former Representative Victor Herbert Fazio, Jr., (CA).
    59 Section 311© of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.
    60 For general information on the Committee of the Whole, see “House and Senate Floor
    Action, House” above and, for more detailed information, see CRS Report RL32200,
    Debate, Motions, and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole, by Bill Heniff Jr. and
    Elizabeth Rybicki; and CRS Report RS20147, Committee of the Whole: An Introduction, by
    Judy Schneider.
    61 If the committee votes against “rising,” it may consider one proper amendment, such as
    an amendment reducing funds in the bill to bring it into compliance with the allocation. The
    separate order also provides an up-or-down vote on the amendment. Only one such point
    of order may be raised against a measure.
    Special rules providing for the consideration of bills routinely preclude a motion to rise
    and report by ordering the Committee of the Whole to rise and report after all amendments
    have been considered. Since adoption of the original separate order (H.Res. 248 (109th
    Cong.) on April 28, 2005, almost all special rules providing for the consideration of regular
    Order. Significantly, the separate order does not apply to a motion to rise and report
    proposed after the bill has been read for amendment, if offered by the majority leader
    (or a designee).
    The House may waive or suspend the three points of order by adopting, by
    majority vote, a special rule waiving the particular point of order prior to floor
    consideration of the appropriations legislation.
    Two points of order, 302(f) and 311(a),62 enforce spending ceilings
    that affect appropriations measures. The Senate versions of these rules vary from the
    House versions. In the Senate, these points of order apply to all appropriations
    measures, both those reported by the committee and amended on the floor, as well
    as amendments, motions, and conferences reports to these measures.
    The Senate 302(f) point of order prohibits floor consideration of legislation,
    motions, and conference reports that exceed the subcommittee allocations in new
    budget authority and total outlays. In contrast to the House, it does not enforce the
    302(a) allocations. As in the House, this point of order, in effect, applies to total
    discretionary spending (and any mandatory spending changes initiated on the
    appropriations measures). The 311(a) point of order in the Senate is similar to the
    House version; however, it does not include the Fazio Exception.
    Senators may make motions to waive these points of order at the time the issue
    is raised. Currently, a vote of three-fifths of all Senators (60 Senators, if there are no
    vacancies) is required to approve a waiver motion for any of these points of order.
    A vote to appeal the presiding officer’s ruling also requires three-fifths vote of all
    Senators. These super-majority vote requirements expire on September 30, 2010.
    Since 1990, both the House and Senate have,
    generally, developed procedures to exempt from the above spending ceilings funding
    for emergencies. These procedures have evolved; now, budget authority (and
    resulting outlays) designated as emergency spending in appropriations measures,
    amendments, and conference reports are exempt.63
    For FY2007, the House also exempts spending in appropriations legislation and
    conference reports that are designated “for contingency operations directly related to
    appropriations bills have not included such an order, thereby, providing an opportunity for
    Representatives to raise this point of order.
    62 These refer to sections 302(f) and 311(a), respectively, of the Congressional Budget Act.
    63 For current House procedures, see H.Con.Res. 376 (109th Cong.), as adopted by the
    House, sec. 402 and title V. For current Senate procedures, see U.S. Congress, Conference
    Committees, 2005, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, conference
    report to accompany H.Con.Res. 95, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-62 (Washington:
    GPO, 2005), sec. 402; P.L. 109-234, sec. 7035; and S.Con.Res. 83 (109th Cong.), as adopted
    by the Senate, sec. 402. For general information on rules regarding emergency designations,
    see CRS Report RS21035, Emergency Spending: Statutory and Congressional Rules
    the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations”
    (contingency operations).
    In practice, House emergency and contingency operations designations may be
    included in the committee-reported bills and conference reports, but not in floor
    amendments. Under House precedents, these designations are considered legislation
    on an appropriations bill, which are prohibited.64 The House, sometimes, adopts a
    special rule waiving this point of order against emergency and contingency
    operations designations in the reported bills and conference reports, but not such
    provisions in floor amendments.
    By contrast, under Senate precedents such designations are not considered
    legislation on an appropriations bill. Emergency designations may be included in
    Senate floor amendments as well as committee amendments, reported bills, amended
    bills, and conference reports.
    Emergency designations for non-defense spending are, however, subject to
    another point of order.65 If this point of order is raised and sustained, the emergency
    designation is stricken and the funding is then subject to the points of order enforcing
    the spending ceilings. In order to waive this point of order, a three-fifths vote of all
    Senators is required, thereby requiring super-majority support. A vote to appeal the
    presiding officer’s ruling also requires three-fifths vote of all Senators.
    For FY2007, both chambers have established different ceilings on designated funding
    exemptions. Under House procedures, there is a $6.450 billion limit on non defense
    discretionary spending, any additional non-defense discretionary designated
    funds may only be exempt if approved generally by the House Committee on the
    Budget.66 There is no House ceiling on defense spending, “contingency operations.”
    The Senate, by contrast, set a FY2007 total limit of $86.3 billion on all funds
    designated as an emergency, both defense and non-defense spending Specifically, special budgetary designations pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the
    budget are considered “legislation on an appropriations bill.” Special budgetary
    designations include provisions (1) designating funds as “making appropriations for
    contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism and other
    unanticipated defense-related operations” under sec. 402 of H.Con.Res 376 (109th Cong.);
    and (2) designating funds as “an emergency requirement” under title v of the same
    resolution. For more information on legislation on an appropriations bill, see “Relationship
    Between Authorization and Appropriation Measures”
    Congress has established an authorization-appropriation process that provides
    for two separate types of measures — authorization measures and appropriation
    measures. These bills perform different functions and are to be considered in
    sequence. First, the authorization measure is considered and then the appropriation
    measure.
    Authorization acts establish, continue, or modify agencies or programs. For
    example, an authorization act may establish or modify programs within the
    Department of Defense. The authorization act also authorizes subsequent
    appropriations for specific agencies and programs, frequently setting spending
    ceilings for them. These authorization of appropriations provisions may be
    permanent, annual, or multi-year authorizations. Annual and multi-year provisions
    require re-authorizations when they expire. Congress is not required to provide
    appropriations for an authorized discretionary spending program.
    Authorization measures are under the jurisdiction of legislative committees such
    as the House Committees on Agriculture and Homeland Security, or the Senate
    Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary. Most congressional committees
    are legislative committees.68 The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
    however, are not. Appropriations measures provide new budget authority for the
    program, activity, or agency previously authorized.
    The authorization-appropriation process enforces separation of these functions
    into different measures by separating committee jurisdiction over authorization and
    appropriations bills and with points of order prohibiting certain provisions in
    appropriations measures.69 The House and Senate prohibit, in varying degrees,
    language in appropriations bills providing unauthorized appropriations or legislation
    on an appropriations bill (or legislation). An unauthorized appropriation is new
    budget authority in an appropriations measure (amendment or conference report) for
    agencies or programs whose authorization has expired or was never authorized, or
    whose budget authority exceeds the ceiling authorized. Legislation refers to language
    in appropriations measures that change existing law, such as establishing new law,
    or amending or repealing current law. Legislation is under the jurisdiction of the
    authorizing committees (also called legislative committees).
    House rules prohibit unauthorized appropriations and legislation in regular
    appropriations bills and supplemental appropriations measures, which provide funds
    for more than one purpose or agency (referred to in the House as general
    appropriations bills). However, House rules do not prohibit such provisions in The House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee have jurisdiction
    over some authorization measures, all revenue measures, and some mandatory spending
    measures.
    69 House Rule XXI, clause 2; House Rule XXII, clause 5; and Senate Rule XVI. House rules
    also prohibit appropriations in authorization measures, amendments, or conference reports
    (Rule XXI, clause 4 and House Rule XXII, clause 5).
    continuing resolutions. The House prohibition applies to bills reported by the House
    Appropriations Committee, amendments, and conference reports. The House may
    adopt a special rule waiving this rule prior to floor consideration of the
    appropriations bill or conference report.70 The point of order applies to the text of the
    bills, amendments, and conference reports; not the committee report or the joint
    explanatory statement.
    In the Senate, unauthorized appropriations and legislation are treated differently.
    The Senate rule regarding such language applies to regular bills, supplementals which
    provide funds for more than one purpose or agency, and continuing resolutions
    (referred to in the Senate as general appropriations bills).
    This Senate rule applies only to amendments to general appropriations bills,
    such as, those
    ! introduced on the Senate floor;
    ! reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Housepassed
    measure; or
    ! proposed as a substitute for the House-passed text.
    The rule does not apply to provisions in Senate bills or conference reports.71 For
    example, this rule did not apply to provisions in S. 1005, the FY1998 Defense
    appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. But it did
    apply to provisions in H.R. 2107, the FY1998 Interior bill, as reported by the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, since this version of the bill consisted of amendments to
    the House-passed bill.72 Recently, the Senate has adopted procedures, on a bill-bybill
    basis, that make these points of order applicable to the provisions of Senate bills.
    The Senate rule is less restrictive than the House on unauthorized
    appropriations. For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee may report
    committee amendments containing unauthorized appropriations. An appropriation
    is considered authorized if the Senate previously passes the authorization bill during
    the same session of Congress. In contrast, in the House, the authorization must be
    in law.
    Although the Senate rule generally prohibits unauthorized appropriations in noncommittee
    amendments, Senators rarely raise this point of order because of
    exceptions to the rule.
    The special rule may provide a waiver for specified provisions or all provisions in the bill
    that are subject to the point of order. The special rule may also provide a waiver for specific
    amendments. Special rules typically waive points of order against all provisions in all
    conference reports on general appropriations measures.
    71 The rule also does not apply to language in committee reports or joint explanatory
    statements.
    72 The Senate rule reflects Senate practices at the time the rule was established. The Senate
    Appropriations Committee traditionally reported numerous amendments to the Housepassed
    appropriations bill, instead of reporting an original Senate bill. Therefore, the rule’s
    prohibition only applies to amendments, both committee and floor amendments.
    The Senate rule prohibits legislation in both Senate Appropriations Committee
    amendments and non-committee amendments.73 It also prohibits non-germane
    amendments.
    The division between an authorization and an appropriation is limited to
    congressional consideration of appropriations measures. If unauthorized
    appropriations or legislation remain in a measure as enacted, either because no one
    raised a point of order or the House or Senate waived the rules, the provision will
    have the force of law. Again, enacted unauthorized appropriations are generally
    available for obligation or expenditure.
    Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority. To continue the earlier
    example, after Congress enacted the $1.6 billion to construct the submarine, it could
    enact legislation canceling the budget authority prior to its obligation. Rescissions
    are an expression of changed or differing priorities. They may also be used to offset
    increases in budget authority for other activities.
    The President may recommend rescissions to Congress, but it is up to Congress
    to act on them. Under Title X of the Congressional Budget Act,74 Congress must
    enact a bill approving the President’s rescissions within 45 days of continuous
    session of Congress or the budget authority must be spent.
    In practice, this usually means that funds proposed for rescission not approved
    by Congress must be made available for obligation after about 60 calendar days,
    although the period can extend to 75 days or longer.75
    In response to the President’s recommendation, Congress may decide not to
    approve the amount specified by the President, approve the total amount, or approve
    a different amount. In 2005, the President requested a rescission of $106 million
    from the Department of Defense (DOD), Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
    account and $48.6 million from DOD, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
    Army account. Congress provided a rescission of $80 million from the first account
    in the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
    Under Senate precedents, an amendment containing legislation may be considered if it is
    germane to language in the House-passed appropriations bill. That is, if the House opens
    the door by including a legislative provision in an appropriations bill, the Senate has an
    “inherent right” to amend it. However, if the Senate considers an original Senate bill, rather
    than the House-passed bill with amendments, there is no House language to which the
    legislative provision could be germane. Therefore, the defense of germaneness is not
    available.
    74 Title X is referred to as the Impoundment Control Act
    Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006.76 The act did
    not provide a rescission from the second account.
    Congress may also initiate rescissions. In the above act, Congress also initiated
    a rescission of $10 million from the Department of State, Diplomatic and Consular
    Programs account.
    As budget authority providing the funding must be enacted into law, so, too, a
    rescission canceling the budget authority must be enacted into law. Rescissions can
    be included in either separate rescission measures or any of the three types of
    appropriations measures.

    1. Whenever a bill or joint resolution shall be offered, its introduction shall, if objected to, be postponed for one day.
    2. Every bill and joint resolution shall receive three readings previous to its passage which readings on demand of any Senator shall be on three different legislative days, and the Presiding Officer shall give notice at each reading whether it be the first, second, or third: Provided,That each reading may be by title only, unless the Senate in any case shall otherwise order.
    3. No bill or joint resolution shall be committed or amended until it shall have been twice read, after which it may be referred to a committee; bills and joint resolutions introduced on leave, and bills and joint resolutions from the House of Representatives, shall be read once, and may be read twice, if not objected to, on the same day for reference, but shall not be considered on that day nor debated, except for reference, unless by unanimous consent.
    4. Every bill and joint resolution reported from a committee, not having previously been read, shall be read once, and twice, if not objected to, on the same day, and placed on the Calendar in the order in which the same may be reported; and every bill and joint resolution introduced on leave, and every bill and joint resolution of the House of Representatives which shall have received a first and second reading without being referred to a committee, shall, if objection be made to further proceeding thereon, be placed on the Calendar.
    5. All bills, amendments, and joint resolutions shall be examined under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate before they go out of the possession of the Senate, and all bills and joint resolutions which shall have passed both Houses shall be examined under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate, to see that the same are correctly enrolled, and, when signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall forthwith present the same, when they shall have originated in the Senate, to the President of the United States and report the fact and date of such presentation to the Senate.
    6. All other resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, if not referred, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct. When objection is heard to the immediate consideration of a resolution or motion when it is submitted, it shall be placed on the Calendar under the heading of “Resolutions and Motions over, under the Rule,” to be laid before the Senate on the next legislative day when there is no further morning business but before the close of morning business and before the termination of the morning hour.
    7. When a bill or joint resolution shall have been ordered to be read a third time, it shall not be in order to propose amendments, unless by unanimous consent, but it shall be in order at any time before the passage of any bill or resolution to move its commitment; and when the bill or resolution shall again be reported from the committee it shall be placed on the Calendar.
    8. When a bill or resolution is accompanied by a preamble, the question shall first be put on the bill or resolution and then on the preamble, which may be withdrawn by a mover before an amendment of the same, or ordering of the yeas and nays; or it may be laid on the table without prejudice to the bill or resolution, and shall be a final disposition of such preamble.
    9. Whenever a private bill, except a bill for a pension, is under consideration, it shall be in order to move the adoption of a resolution to refer the bill to the Chief Commissioner of the Court of Claims for a report in conformity with section 2509 of title 28, United States Code.
    10. No private bill or resolution (including socalled omnibus claims or pension bills), and no amendment to any bill or resolution, authorizing or directing (1) the payment of money for property damages, personal injuries, or death, for which a claim may be filed under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, or for a pension (other than to carry out a provision of law or treaty stipulation); (2) the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream; or (3) the correction of a military or naval record, shall be received or considered.
    1. (a) When a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification, it shall be read a first time; and no motion in respect to it shall be in order, except to refer it to a committee, to print it in confidence for the use of the Senate, or to remove the injunction of secrecy.
    (b) When a treaty is reported from a committee with or without amendment, it shall, unless the Senate unanimously otherwise directs, lie over one day for consideration; after which it may be read a second time, after which amendments may be proposed. At any stage of such proceedings the Senate may remove the injunction of secrecy from the treaty.
    © The decisions thus made shall be reduced to the form of a resolution of ratification, with or without amendments, as the case may be, which shall be proposed on a subsequent day, unless, by unanimous consent, the Senate determine otherwise, at which stage no amendment to the treaty shall be received unless by unanimous consent; but the resolution of ratification when pending shall be open to amendment in the form of reservations, declarations, statements, or understandings.
    (d) On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of twothirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative; but all other motions and questions upon a treaty shall be decided by a majority vote, except a motion to postpone indefinitely, which shall be decided by a vote of twothirds.
    2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon
    1. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendments shall be received to any general appropriation bill the effect of which will be to increase an appropriation already contained in the bill, or to add a new item of appropriation, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law, or treaty stipulation, or act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session; or unless the same be moved by direction of the Committee on Appropriations or of a committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction of the subject matter, or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law.
    2. The Committee on Appropriations shall not report an appropriation bill containing amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation or any restriction on the expenditure of the funds appropriated which proposes a limitation not authorized by law if such restriction is to take effect or cease to be effective upon the happening of a contingency, and if an appropriation bill is reported to the Senate containing amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation or any such restriction, a point of order may be made against the bill, and if the point is sustained, the bill shall be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations.
    3. All amendments to general appropriation bills moved by direction of a committee having legislative jurisdiction of the subject matter proposing to increase an appropriation already contained in the bill, or to add new items of appropriation, shall, at least one day before they are considered, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and when actually proposed to the bill no amendment proposing to increase the amount stated in such amendment shall be received on a point of order made by any Senator.
    4. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment offered by any other Senator which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill be received; nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received which does not directly relate thereto; nor shall any restriction on the expenditure of the funds appropriated which proposes a limitation not authorized by law be received if such restriction is to take effect or cease to be effective upon the happening of a contingency; and all questions of relevancy of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate; and any such amendment or restriction to a general appropriation bill may be laid on the table without prejudice to the bill.
    5. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment, the object of which is to provide for a private claim, shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be to carry out the provisions of an existing law or a treaty stipulation, which shall be cited on the face of the amendment.
    6. When a point of order is made against any restriction on the expenditure of funds appropriated in a general appropriation bill on the ground that the restriction violates this rule, the rule shall be construed strictly and, in case of doubt, in favor of the point of order.
    7. Every report on general appropriation bills filed by the Committee on Appropriations shall identify with particularity each recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.
    8. On a point of order made by any Senator, no general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations for public works on which work has commenced.
    1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order
    1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
    (b) At the conclusion of the morning hour at the beginning of a new legislative day or after the unfinished business or any pending business has first been laid before the Senate on any calendar day, and until after the duration of three hours of actual session after such business is laid down except as determined to the contrary by unanimous consent or on motion without debate, all debate shall be germane and confined to the specific question then pending before the Senate.
    2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
    3. No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union.
    4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
    5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate.
    6. Whenever confusion arises in the Chamber or the galleries, or demonstrations of approval or disapproval are indulged in by the occupants of the galleries, it shall be the duty of the Chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a Senator.
    7. No Senator shall introduce to or bring to the attention of the Senate during its sessions any occupant in the galleries of the Senate. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor may the Presiding Officer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.
    8. Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Officer who shall thereupon make the necessary arrangements.
    1. A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall not
    receive any compensation, nor shall he permit any compensation
    to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the
    receipt or accrual of which would occur by virtue of influence
    improperly exerted from his position as a Member, officer, or
    employee.
    2. No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any
    outside business or professional activity or employment for
    compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the
    conscientious performance of official duties.
    3. No officer or employee shall engage in any outside
    business or professional activity or employment for
    compensation unless he has reported in writing when such
    activity or employment commences and on May 15 of each year
    thereafter so long as such activity or employment continues,
    the nature of such activity or employment to his supervisor.
    The supervisor shall then, in the discharge of his duties, take
    such action as he considers necessary for the avoidance of
    conflict of interest or interference with duties to the Senate.
    4. No Member, officer, or employee shall knowingly use his
    official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage
    of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only
    his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his
    immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited
    class of persons or enterprises, when he, or his immediate
    family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the
    affected class.
    5. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall (1)
    affiliate with a firm, partnership, association, or corporation
    for the purpose of providing professional services for
    compensation; (2) permit that individual’s name to be used by
    such a firm, partnership, association or corporation; or (3)
    practice a profession for compensation to any extent during
    regular office hours of the Senate office in which employed.
    For the purposes of this paragraph, ``professional services’’
    shall include but not be limited to those which involve a
    fiduciary relationship.
    (b) A Member or an officer or employee whose rate of basic
    pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the annual rate
    of basic pay in effect for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule
    shall not—
    (1) receive compensation for affiliating with or
    being employed by a firm, partnership, association,
    corporation, or other entity which provides
    professional services involving a fiduciary
    relationship;
    (2) permit that Member’s, officer’s, or employee’s
    name to be used by any such firm, partnership,
    association, corporation, or other entity;
    (3) receive compensation for practicing a profession
    which involves a fiduciary relationship; or
    (4) receive compensation for teaching, without the
    prior notification and approval of the Select\68\
    Committee on Ethics.

    6. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall
    serve as an officer or member of the board of any publicly held
    or publicly regulated corporation, financial institution, or
    business entity. The preceding sentence shall not apply to
    service of a Member, officer, or employee as—

    (1) an officer or member of the board of an
    organization which is exempt from taxation under
    section 501© of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, if
    such service is performed without compensation;

    (2) an officer or member of the board of an
    institution or organization which is principally
    available to Members, officers, or employees of the
    Senate, or their families, if such service is performed
    without compensation; or

    (3) a member of the board of a corporation,
    institution, or other business entity, if (A) the
    Member, officer, or employee had served continuously as
    a member of the board thereof for at least two years
    prior to his election or appointment as a Member,
    officer, or employee of the Senate, (B) the amount of
    time required to perform such service is minimal, and
    © the Member, officer, or employee is not a member
    of, or a member of the staff of any Senate committee
    which has legislative jurisdiction over any agency of
    the Government charged with regulating the activities
    of the corporation, institution, or other business
    entity.

    (b) A Member or an officer or employee whose rate of basic
    pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the annual rate
    of basic pay in effect for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule
    shall not serve for compensation as an officer or member of the
    board of any association, corporation, or other entity.

    7. An employee on the staff of a committee who is
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall
    divest himself of any substantial holdings which may be
    directly affected by the actions of the committee for which he
    works, unless the Select Committee, after consultation with the
    employee’s supervisor, grants permission in writing to retain
    such holdings or the employee makes other arrangements
    acceptable to the Select Committee and the employee’s
    supervisor to avoid participation in committee actions where
    there is a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.

    8. If a Member, upon leaving office, becomes a
    registered lobbyist under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying
    Act of 1946 or any successor statute, or is employed or
    retained by such a registered lobbyist or an entity that
    employs or retains a registered lobbyist for the purpose of
    influencing legislation, he shall not lobby Members, officers,
    or employees of the Senate for a period of two years after
    leaving office.

    9. (a) If an employee on the staff of a Member, upon
    leaving that position, becomes a registered lobbyist under the
    Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 or any successor
    statute, or is employed or retained by such a registered
    lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a registered
    lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation, such
    employee may not lobby the Member for whom he worked or that
    Member’s staff for a period of one year after leaving that
    position.

    (b) If an employee on the staff of a committee, upon
    leaving his position, becomes such a registered lobbyist or is
    employed or retained by such a registered lobbyist or an entity
    that employs or retains a registered lobbyist for the purpose
    of influencing legislation, such employee may not lobby the
    members of the committee for which he worked, or the staff of
    that committee, for a period of one year after leaving his
    position.

    © If an officer of the Senate or an employee on the
    staff of a Member or on the staff of a committee whose rate of
    pay is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the rate of pay
    of a Member and employed at such rate for more than 60 days in
    a calendar year, upon leaving that position, becomes a
    registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a
    registered lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation,
    such employee may not lobby any Member, officer, or employee of
    the Senate for a period of 1 year after leaving that position.

    10. Paragraphs 8 and 9 shall not apply to contacts with
    the staff of the Secretary of the Senate regarding compliance
    with the lobbying disclosure requirements of the Lobbying
    Disclosure Act of 1995.

    11. (a) If a Member’s spouse or immediate family member is
    a registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist or an entity that hires or retains a
    registered lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation,
    the Member shall prohibit all staff employed or supervised by
    that Member (including staff in personal, committee, and
    leadership offices) from having any contact with the Member’s
    spouse or immediate family member that constitutes a lobbying
    contact as defined by section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
    of 1995 by such person.

    (b) Members and employees on the staff of a Member
    (including staff in personal, committee, and leadership
    offices) shall be prohibited from having any contact that
    constitutes a lobbying contact as defined by section 3 of the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by any spouse of a Member who
    is a registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist.

    © The prohibition in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to
    the spouse of a Member who was serving as a registered lobbyist
    at least 1 year prior to the most recent election of that
    Member to office or at least 1 year prior to his or her
    marriage to that Member.

    12. (a) Except as provided by subparagraph (b), any
    employee of the Senate who is required to file a report
    pursuant to rule XXXIV shall refrain from participating
    personally and substantially as an employee of the Senate in
    any contact with any agency of the executive or judicial branch
    of Government with respect to non-legislative matters affecting
    any non-governmental person in which the employee has a
    significant financial interest.

    (b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply if an employee first
    advises his supervising authority of his significant financial
    interest and obtains from his employing authority a written
    waiver stating that the participation of the employee is
    necessary. A copy of each such waiver shall be filed with the
    Select Committee.

    13. For purposes of this rule—

    (a) ``employee of the Senate’’ includes an employee
    or individual described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4© of
    rule XLI;

    (b) an individual who is an employee on the staff of
    a subcommittee of a committee shall be treated as an
    employee on the staff of such committee; and

    © the term ``lobbying’’ means any oral or written
    communication to influence the content or disposition
    of any issue before Congress, including any pending or
    future bill, resolution, treaty, nomination, hearing,
    report, or investigation; but does not include—

    (1) a communication (i) made in the form of
    testimony given before a committee or office of
    the Congress, or (ii) submitted for inclusion
    in the public record, public docket, or public
    file of a hearing; or

    (2) a communication by an individual, acting
    solely on his own behalf, for redress of
    personal grievances, or to express his personal
    opinion.

    14. (a) A Member shall not negotiate or have any
    arrangement concerning prospective private employment until
    after his or her successor has been elected, unless such Member
    files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate, for
    public disclosure, regarding such negotiations or arrangements
    not later than 3 business days after the commencement of such
    negotiation or arrangement, including the name of the private
    entity or entities involved in such negotiations or
    arrangements, and the date such negotiations or arrangements
    commenced.

    (b) A Member shall not negotiate or have any arrangement
    concerning prospective employment for a job involving lobbying
    activities as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
    until after his or her successor has been elected.

    ©(1) An employee of the Senate earning in excess of 75
    percent of the salary paid to a Senator shall notify the Select
    Committee on Ethics that he or she is negotiating or has any
    arrangement concerning prospective private employment.

    (2) The notification under this subparagraph shall be made
    not later than 3 business days after the commencement of such
    negotiation or arrangement.

    (3) An employee to whom this subparagraph applies shall—

    (A) recuse himself or herself from—

    (i) any contact or communication with the
    prospective employer on issues of legislative
    interest to the prospective employer; and

    (ii) any legislative matter in which there is
    a conflict of interest or an appearance of a
    conflict for that employee under this
    subparagraph; and

    (B) notify the Select Committee on Ethics of such
    recusal.

    15. For purposes of this rule—

    (a) a Senator or the Vice President is the supervisor
    of his administrative, clerical, or other assistants;

    (b) a Senator who is the chairman of a committee is
    the supervisor of the professional, clerical, or other
    assistants to the committee except that minority staff
    members shall be under the supervision of the ranking
    minority Senator on the committee;

    © a Senator who is a chairman of a subcommittee
    which has its own staff and financial authorization is
    the supervisor of the professional, clerical, or other
    assistants to the subcommittee except that minority
    staff members shall be under the supervision of the
    ranking minority Senator on the subcommittee;

    (d) the President pro tempore is the supervisor of
    the Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms and
    Doorkeeper, the Chaplain, the Legislative Counsel, and
    the employees of the Office of the Legislative Counsel;

    (e) the Secretary of the Senate is the supervisor of
    the employees of his office;

    (f) the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is the
    supervisor of the employees of his office;

    (g) the Majority and Minority Leaders and the
    Majority and Minority Whips are the supervisors of the
    research, clerical, or other assistants assigned to
    their respective offices;

    (h) the Majority Leader is the supervisor of the
    Secretary for the Majority and the Secretary for the
    Majority is the supervisor of the employees of his
    office; and

    (i) the Minority Leader is the supervisor of the
    Secretary for the Minority and the Secretary for the
    Minority is the supervisor of the employees of his
    office.
    1. A Senator or an individual who is a candidate for nomination for election, or election, to the Senate may not use the frank for any mass mailing (as defined in section 3210(a)(6)(E)2 of title 39, United States Code) if such mass mailing is mailed at or delivered to any postal facility less than sixty days immediately before the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which the Senator is a candidate for public office or the individual is a candidate for Senator, unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.
    2. A Senator shall use only official funds of the Senate, including his official Senate allowances, to purchase paper, to print, or to prepare any mass mailing material which is to be sent out under the frank.
    3. (a) When a Senator disseminates information under the frank by a mass mailing (as defined in section 3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States Code), the Senator shall register quarterly with the Secretary of the Senate such mass mailings. Such registration shall be made by filing with the Secretary a copy of the matter mailed and providing, on a form supplied by the Secretary, a description of the group or groups of persons to whom the mass mailing was mailed.
    (b) The Secretary of the Senate shall promptly make available for public inspection and copying a copy of the mail matter registered, and a description of the group or groups of persons to whom the mass mailing was mailed.
    4. Nothing in this rule shall apply to any mailing under the frank which is (a) in direct response to inquiries or requests from persons to whom the matter is mailed; (b) addressed to colleagues in Congress or to government officials (whether Federal, State, or local); or © consists entirely of news releases to the communications media.
    5. The Senate computer facilities shall not be used (a) to store, maintain, or otherwise process any lists or categories of lists of names and addresses identifying the individuals included in such lists as campaign workers or contributors, as members of a political party, or by any other partisan political designation, (b) to produce computer printouts except as authorized by user guides approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, or © to produce mailing labels for mass mailings, or computer tapes and discs, for use other than in service facilities maintained and operated by the Senate or under contract to the Senate. The Committee on Rules and Administration shall prescribe such regulations not inconsistent with the purposes of this paragraph as it determines necessary to carry out such purposes.
    6. (a) The radio and television studios provided by the Senate or by the House of Representatives may not be used by a Senator or an individual who is a candidate for nomination for election, or election, to the Senate less than sixty days immediately before the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which that Senator is a candidate for public office or that individual is a candidate for Senator, unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.
    (b) This paragraph shall not apply if the facilities are to be used at the request of, and at the expense of, a licensed broadcast organization or an organization exempt from taxation under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
    1. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.
    2. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the sponsor of the bill or joint resolution for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.
    3. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report, has been identified through lists, charts, or other means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, then the conference report shall be set aside.
    4. (a) If during consideration of a bill or joint resolution, a Senator proposes an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit which was not included in the bill or joint resolution as placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee, in a committee report on such bill or joint resolution, or a committee report of the Senate on a companion measure, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that a list of such items (and the name of any Senator who submitted a request to the Senator for each respective item included in the list) is printed in the Congressional Record.
    (b) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution that includes congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, the committee shall as soon as practicable identify on a publicly accessible congressional website each such item through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified. Availability on the Internet of a committee report that contains the information described in this subparagraph shall satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.
    © To the extent technically feasible, information made available on publicly accessible congressional websites under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be provided in a searchable format.
    5. For the purpose of this rule-
    (a) the term ``congressionally directed spending item’’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
    (b) the term ``limited tax benefit’’ means-
    (1) any revenue provision that-
    (A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
    (B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision;
    © the term ``limited tariff benefit’’ means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities; and
    (d) except as used in subparagraph 8(e), the term ``item`’ when not preceded by ``congressionally directed spending’’ means any provision that is a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit.
    6. (a) A Senator who requests a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, including-
    (1) the name of the Senator;
    (2) in the case of a congressionally directed spending item, the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity;
    (3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, identification of the individual or entities reasonably anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Senator;
    (4) the purpose of such congressionally directed spending item or limited tax or tariff benefit; and
    (5) a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator’s immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9.
    (b) With respect to each item included in a Senate bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) reported by committee or considered by the Senate, or included in a conference report (or joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report) considered by the Senate, each committee of jurisdiction shall make available for public inspection on the Internet the certifications under subparagraph (a)(5) as soon as practicable.
    7. In the case of a bill, joint resolution, or conference report that contains congressionally directed spending items in any classified portion of a report accompanying the measure, the committee of jurisdiction shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with the need to protect national security (including intelligence sources and methods), include on the list required by paragraph 1, 2, or 3 as the case may be, a general program description in unclassified language, funding level, and the name of the sponsor of that congressionally directed spending item.
    8. (a) A Senator may raise a point of order against one or more provisions of a conference report if they constitute new directed spending provisions. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order.
    (b) If the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order as to any of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be stricken. After all other points of order under this paragraph have been disposed of-
    (1) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report that has not been stricken; and
    (2) the question in clause (1) shall be decided under the same debate limitation as the conference report and no further amendment shall be in order.
    © Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this paragraph with respect to the pending conference report by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order under this paragraph shall not be amendable.
    (d) All appeals from rulings of the Chair under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour, equally divided between the Majority and the Minority Leader or their designees. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair under this paragraph.
    (e) The term `new directed spending provision’ as used in this paragraph means any item that consists of a specific provision containing a specific level of funding for any specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity, when no specific funding was provided for such specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity in the measure originally committed to the conferees by either House.
    9. No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly use his official position to introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage of congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits a principal purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or his immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.
    10. Any Senator may move to waive application of paragraph 1, 2, or 3 with respect to a measure by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. A motion to waive under this paragraph with respect to a measure shall be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. With respect to points of order raised under paragraphs 1, 2, or 3, only one appeal from a ruling of the Chair shall be in order, and debate on such an appeal from a ruling of the Chair on such point of order shall be limited to one hour.
    11. Any Senator may move to waive all points of order under this rule with respect to the pending measure or motion by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall not be amendable.
    12. Paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this rule may be waived by joint agreement of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate upon their certification that such waiver is necessary as a result of a significant disruption to Senate facilities or to the availability of the Internet.
    1. The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have the power to act until their successors are appointed, with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their respective jurisdictions:
    (a)(1) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating primarily to the following subjects:
    1. Agricultural economics and research.
    2. Agricultural extension services and experiment stations.
    3. Agricultural production, marketing, and stabilization of prices.
    4. Agriculture and agricultural commodities.
    5. Animal industry and diseases.
    6. Crop insurance and soil conservation.
    7. Farm credit and farm security.
    8. Food from fresh waters.
    9. Food stamp programs.
    10. Forestry, and forest reserves and wilderness areas other than those created from the public domain.
    11. Home economics.
    12. Human nutrition.
    13. Inspection of livestock, meat, and agricultural products.
    14. Pests and pesticides.
    15. Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering.
    16. Rural development, rural electrification, and watersheds.
    17. School nutrition programs.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to food, nutrition, and hunger, both in the United States and in foreign countries, and rural affairs, and report thereon from time to time.
    (b) Committee on Appropriations, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the Government, except as provided in subparagraph (e).
    2. Rescission of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts (referred to in section 105 of title 1, United States Code).
    3. The amount of new spending authority described in section 401©(2) (A) and (B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which is to be effective for a fiscal year.
    4. New spending authority described in section 401©(2)© of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provided in bills and resolutions referred to the committee under section 401(b)(2) of that Act (but subject to the provisions of section 401(b)(3) of that Act).
    ©(1) Committee on Armed Services, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations.
    2. Common defense.
    3. Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, generally.
    4. Maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone.
    5. Military research and development.
    6. National security aspects of nuclear energy.
    7. Naval petroleum reserves, except those in Alaska.
    8. Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the Armed Forces, including overseas education of civilian and military dependents.
    9. Selective service system.
    10. Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to the common defense policy of the United States, and report thereon from time to time.
    (d)(1) Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Banks, banking, and financial institutions.
    2. Control of prices of commodities, rents, and services.
    3. Deposit insurance.
    4. Economic stabilization and defense production.
    5. Export and foreign trade promotion.
    6. Export controls.
    7. Federal monetary policy, including Federal Reserve System.
    8. Financial aid to commerce and industry.
    9. Issuance and redemption of notes.
    10. Money and credit, including currency and coinage.
    11. Nursing home construction.
    12. Public and private housing (including veterans’ housing).
    13. Renegotiation of Government contracts.
    14. Urban development and urban mass transit.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to international economic policy as it affects United States monetary affairs, credit, and financial institutions; economic growth, urban affairs, and credit, and report thereon from time to time.
    (e)(1) Committee on the Budget, to which committee shall be referred all concurrent resolutions on the budget (as defined in section 3(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and all other matters required to be referred to that committee under titles III and IV of that Act, and messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating thereto.
    (2) Such committee shall have the duty
    (A) to report the matters required to be reported by it under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974;
    (B) to make continuing studies of the effect on budget outlays of relevant existing and proposed legislation and to report the results of such studies to the Senate on a recurring basis;
    © to request and evaluate continuing studies of tax expenditures, to devise methods of coordinating tax expenditures, policies, and programs with direct budget outlays, and to report the results of such studies to the Senate on a recurring basis; and
    (D) to review, on a continuing basis, the conduct by the Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties.
    (f)(1) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Coast Guard.
    2. Coastal zone management.
    3. Communications.
    4. Highway safety.
    5. Inland waterways, except construction.
    6. Interstate commerce.
    7. Marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation, including navigational aspects of deepwater ports.
    8. Marine fisheries.
    9. Merchant marine and navigation.
    10. Nonmilitary aeronautical and space sciences.
    11. Oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities.
    12. Panama Canal and interoceanic canals generally, except as provided in subparagraph ©.
    13. Regulation of consumer products and services, including testing related to toxic substances, other than pesticides, and except for credit, financial services, and housing.
    14. Regulation of interstate common carriers, including railroads, buses, trucks, vessels, pipelines, and civil aviation.
    15. Science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy.
    16. Sports.
    17. Standards and measurement.
    18. Transportation.
    19. Transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, all matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs, and report thereon from time to time.
    (g)(1) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Coal production, distribution, and utilization.
    2. Energy policy.
    3. Energy regulation and conservation.
    4. Energy related aspects of deepwater ports.
    5. Energy research and development.
    6. Extraction of minerals from oceans and Outer Continental Shelf lands.
    7. Hydroelectric power, irrigation, and reclamation.
    8. Mining education and research.
    9. Mining, mineral lands, mining claims, and mineral conservation.
    10. National parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, historical sites, military parks and battlefields, and on the public domain, preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest.
    11. Naval petroleum reserves in Alaska.
    12. Nonmilitary development of nuclear energy.
    13. Oil and gas production and distribution.
    14. Public lands and forests, including farming and grazing thereon, and mineral extraction therefrom.
    15. Solar energy systems.
    16. Territorial possessions of the United States, including trusteeships.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to energy and resources development, and report thereon from time to time.
    (h)(1) Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Air pollution.
    2. Construction and maintenance of highways.
    3. Environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands.
    4. Environmental effects of toxic substances, other than pesticides.
    5. Environmental policy.
    6. Environmental research and development.
    7. Fisheries and wildlife.
    8. Flood control and improvements of rivers and harbors, including environmental aspects of deepwater ports.
    9. Noise pollution.
    10. Nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.
    11. Ocean dumping.
    12. Public buildings and improved grounds of the United States generally, including Federal buildings in the District of Columbia.
    13. Public works, bridges, and dams.
    14. Regional economic development.
    15. Solid waste disposal and recycling.
    16. Water pollution.
    17. Water resources.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to environmental protection and resource utilization and conservation, and report thereon from time to time.
    (i) Committee on Finance, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Bonded debt of the United States, except as provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
    3. Deposit of public moneys.
    4. General revenue sharing.
    5. Health programs under the Social Security Act and health programs financed by a specific tax or trust fund.
    6. National social security.
    7. Reciprocal trade agreements.
    8. Revenue measures generally, except as provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    9. Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions.
    10. Tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto.
    11. Transportation of dutiable goods.
    (j)(1) Committee on Foreign Relations, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries.
    2. Boundaries of the United States.
    3. Diplomatic service.
    4. Foreign economic, military, technical, and humanitarian assistance.
    5. Foreign loans.
    6. International activities of the American National Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    7. International aspects of nuclear energy, including nuclear transfer policy.
    8. International conferences and congresses.
    9. International law as it relates to foreign policy.
    10. International Monetary Fund and other international organizations established primarily for international monetary purposes (except that, at the request of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, any proposed legislation relating to such subjects reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations shall be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).
    11. Intervention abroad and declarations of war.
    12. Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad.
    13. National security and international aspects of trusteeships of the United States.
    14. Oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs as they relate to foreign policy.
    15. Protection of United States citizens abroad and expatriation.
    16. Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally.
    17. Treaties and executive agreements, except reciprocal trade agreements.
    18. United Nations and its affiliated organizations.
    19. World Bank group, the regional development banks, and other international organizations established primarily for development assistance purposes.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to the national security policy, foreign policy, and international economic policy as it relates to foreign policy of the United States, and matters relating to food, hunger, and nutrition in foreign countries, and report thereon from time to time.
    (k)(1) Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Archives of the United States.
    2. Budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations, except as provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    3. Census and collection of statistics, including economic and social statistics.
    4. Congressional organization, except for any part of the matter that amends the rules or orders of the Senate.
    5. Federal Civil Service.
    6. Government information.
    7. Intergovernmental relations.
    8. Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia, except appropriations therefor.
    9. Organization and management of United States nuclear export policy.
    10. Organization and reorganization of the executive branch of the Government.
    11. Postal Service.
    12. Status of officers and employees of the United States, including their classification, compensation, and benefits.
    (2) Such committee shall have the duty of
    (A) receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General of the United States and of submitting such recommendations to the Senate as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports;
    (B) studying the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government;
    © evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and
    (D) studying the intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and international organizations of which the United States is a member.
    (l) Committee on the Judiciary, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Apportionment of Representatives.
    2. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
    3. Civil liberties.
    4. Constitutional amendments.
    5. Federal courts and judges.
    6. Government information.
    7. Holidays and celebrations.
    8. Immigration and naturalization.
    9. Interstate compacts generally.
    10. Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, generally.
    11. Local courts in the territories and possessions.
    12. Measures relating to claims against the United States.
    13. National penitentiaries.
    14. Patent Office.
    15. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
    16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
    17. Revision and codification of the statutes of the United States.
    18. State and territorial boundary lines.
    (m)(1) Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Measures relating to education, labor, health, and public welfare.
    2. Aging.
    3. Agricultural colleges.
    4. Arts and humanities.
    5. Biomedical research and development.
    6. Child labor.
    7. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into interstate commerce.
    8. Domestic activities of the American National Red Cross.
    9. Equal employment opportunity.
    10. Gallaudet College, Howard University, and Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
    11. Individuals with disabilities.
    12. Labor standards and labor statistics.
    13. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
    14. Occupational safety and health, including the welfare of miners.
    15. Private pension plans.
    16. Public health.
    17. Railway labor and retirement.
    18. Regulation of foreign laborers.
    19. Student loans.
    20. Wages and hours of labor.
    (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to health, education and training, and public welfare, and report thereon from time to time.
    (n)(1) Committee on Rules and Administration, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Administration of the Senate Office Buildings and the Senate wing of the Capitol, including the assignment of office space.
    2. Congressional organization relative to rules and procedures, and Senate rules and regulations, including floor and gallery rules.
    3. Corrupt practices.
    4. Credentials and qualifications of Members of the Senate, contested elections, and acceptance of incompatible offices.
    5. Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, Vice President, and Members of the Congress.
    6. Government Printing Office, and the printing and correction of the Congressional Record, as well as those matters provided for under rule XI.
    7. Meetings of the Congress and attendance of Members.
    8. Payment of money out of the contingent fund of the Senate or creating a charge upon the same (except that any resolution relating to substantive matter within the jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the Senate shall be first referred to such committee).
    9. Presidential succession.
    10. Purchase of books and manuscripts and erection of monuments to the memory of individuals.
    11. Senate Library and statuary, art, and pictures in the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings.
    12. Services to the Senate, including the Senate restaurant.
    13. United States Capitol and congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution (and the incorporation of similar institutions), and the Botanic Gardens.
    (2) Such committee shall also
    (A) make a continuing study of the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States and shall recommend improvements in such organization and operation with a view toward strengthening the Congress, simplifying its operations, improving its relationships with other branches of the United States Government, and enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States;
    (B) identify any court proceeding or action which, in the opinion of the Committee, is of vital interest to the Congress as a constitutionally established institution of the Federal Government and call such proceeding or action to the attention of the Senate; and develop, implement, and update as necessary a strategy planning process and a strategic plan for the functional and technical infrastructure support of the Senate and provide oversight over plans developed by Senate officers and others in accordance with the strategic planning process.
    (o)(1) Committee on Small Business, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the Small Business Administration.
    (2) Any proposed legislation reported by such committee which relates to matters other than the functions of the Small Business Administration shall, at the request of the chairman of any standing committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter extraneous to the functions of the Small Business Administration, be considered and reported by such standing committee prior to its consideration by the Senate; and likewise measures reported by other committees directly relating to the Small Business Administration shall, at the request of the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, be referred to the Committee on Small Business for its consideration of any portions of the measure dealing with the Small Business Administration, and be reported by this committee prior to its consideration by the Senate.
    (3) Such committee shall also study and survey by means of research and investigation all problems of American small business enterprises, and report thereon from time to time.
    (p) Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
    1. Compensation of veterans.
    2. Life insurance issued by the Government on account of service in the Armed Forces.
    3. National cemeteries.
    4. Pensions of all wars of the United States, general and special.
    5. Readjustment of servicemen to civil life.
    6. Soldiers’ and sailors’ civil relief.
    7. Veterans’ hospitals, medical care and treatment of veterans.
    8. Veterans’ measures generally.
    9. Vocational rehabilitation and education of veterans.
    2. Except as otherwise provided by paragraph 4 of this rule, each of the following standing committees shall consist of the number of Senators set forth in the following table on the line on which the name of that committee appears:

    Committee / Members
    Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry / 18
    Appropriations / 28
    Armed Services / 18
    Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs / 18
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation / 20
    Energy and Natural Resources / 20
    Environment and Public Works / 18
    Finance / 20
    Foreign Relations / 18
    Governmental Affairs / 16
    Judiciary / 18
    H.E.L.P. / 18
    3.(a) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph 4 of this rule, each of the following standing committees shall consist of the number of Senators set forth in the following table on the line on which the name of that committee appears:

    Committee / Members
    Budget / 22
    Rules and Administration / 16
    Veterans’ Affairs / 12
    Small Business / 18
    b) Each of the following committees and joint committees shall consist of the number of Senators (or Senate members, in the case of a joint committee) set forth in the following table on the line on which the name of that committee appears:

    Committee / Members
    Aging / 18
    Intelligence / 19
    Joint Economic Committee / 10
    © Each of the following committees and joint committees shall consist of the number of Senators (or Senate members, in the case of a joint committee) set forth in the following table on the line on which the name of that committee appears:

    Committee / Members
    Ethics / 6
    Indian Affairs / 14
    Joint Committee on Taxation / 5
    4.(a) Except as otherwise provided by this paragraph
    (1) each Senator shall serve on two and no more committees listed in paragraph 2; and
    (2) each Senator may serve on only one committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b).
    (b)(1) Each Senator may serve on not more than three subcommittees of each committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member.
    (2) Each Senator may serve on not more than two subcommittees of a committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) of which he is a member.
    (3) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), a Senator serving as chairman or ranking minority member of a standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress may serve ex officio, without vote, as a member of any subcommittee of such committee or joint committee.
    (4) No committee of the Senate may establish any subunit of that committee other than a subcommittee, unless the Senate by resolution has given permission therefor. For purposes of this subparagraph, any subunit of a joint committee shall be treated as a subcommittee.
    © By agreement entered into by the majority leader and the minority leader, the membership of one or more standing committees may be increased temporarily from time to time by such number or numbers as may be required to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees. When any such temporary increase is necessary to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees, members of the majority party in such number as may be required for that purpose may serve as members of three standing committees listed in paragraph 2. No such temporary increase in the membership of any standing committee under this subparagraph shall be continued in effect after the need therefor has ended. No standing committee may be increased in membership under this subparagraph by more than two members in excess of the number prescribed for that committee by paragraph 2 or 3(a).
    (d) A Senator may serve as a member of any joint committee of the Congress the Senate members of which are required by law to be appointed from a standing committee of the Senate of which he is a member, and service as a member of any such joint committee shall not be taken into account for purposes of subparagraph (a)(2).
    (e)(1) No Senator shall serve at any time as chairman of more than one standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress, except that a Senator may serve as chairman of any joint committee of the Congress having jurisdiction with respect to a subject matter which is directly related to the jurisdiction of a standing committee of which he is chairman.
    (2) No Senator shall serve at any time as chairman of more than one subcommittee of each standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress of which he is a member.
    (3) A Senator who is serving as the chairman of a committee listed in paragraph 2 may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of all committees listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member and may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) of which he is a member. A Senator who is serving as the chairman of a committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) may not serve as the chairman of any subcommittee of that committee, and may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member. Any other Senator may serve as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 2, 3(a), or 3(b) of which he is a member.
    (f) A Senator serving on the Committee on Rules and Administration may not serve on any joint committee of the Congress unless the Senate members thereof are required by law to be appointed from the Committee on Rules and Administration, or unless such Senator served on the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Joint Committee on Taxation on the last day of the Ninetyeighth Congress.
    (g) A Senator who on the day preceding the effective date of title I of the Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977 was serving as the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on the District of Columbia or the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service may serve on the Committee on Governmental Affairs in addition to serving on two other standing committees listed in paragraph 2. At the request of any such Senator, he shall be appointed to serve on such committee but, while serving on such committee and two other standing committees listed in paragraph 2, he may not serve on any committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) other than the Committee on Rules and Administration. The preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall apply with respect to any Senator only so long as his service as a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs is continuous after the date on which the appointment of the majority and minority members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs is initially completed.
    1. No officer or employee of the Senate may receive, solicit, be a custodian of, or distribute any funds in connection with any campaign for the nomination for election, or the election, of any individual to be a Member of the Senate or to any other Federal office. This prohibition does not apply to three assistants to a Senator, at least one of whom is in Washington, District of Columbia, who have been designated by that Senator to perform any of the functions described in the first sentence of this paragraph and who are compensated at an annual rate in excess of $10,000 if such designation has been made in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Senate and if each such assistant files a financial statement in the form provided under rule XXXIV for each year during which he is designated under this rule. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader may each designate an employee of their respective leadership office staff as one of the 3 designees referred to in the second sentence. The Secretary of the Senate shall make the designation available for public inspection.
    2. For purposes of the Senate Code of Official Conduct –
    (a) an employee of the Senate includes any employee whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; and
    (b) the compensation of an officer or employee of the Senate who is a reemployed annuitant shall include amounts received by such officer or employee as an annuity, and such amounts shall be treated as disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.
    3. Before approving the utilization by any committee of the Senate of the services of an officer or employee of the Government in accordance with paragraph 4 of rule XXVII or with an authorization provided by Senate resolution, the Committee on Rules and Administration shall require such officer or employee to agree in writing to comply with the Senate Code of Official Conduct in the same manner and to the same extent as an employee of the Senate. Any such officer or employee shall, for purposes of such Code, be treated as an employee of the Senate receiving compensation disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate in an amount equal to the amount of compensation he is receiving as an officer or employee of the Government.
    4. No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall utilize the fulltime services of an individual for more than ninety days in a calendar year in the conduct of official duties of any committee or office of the Senate (including a Member’s office) unless such individual
    (a) is an officer or employee of the Senate,
    (b) is an officer or employee of the Government (other than the Senate), or
    © agrees in writing to comply with the Senate Code of Official Conduct in the same manner and to the same extent as an employee of the Senate. Any individual to whom subparagraph © applies shall, for purposes of such Code, be treated as an employee of the Senate receiving compensation disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate in an amount equal to the amount of compensation which such individual is receiving from any source for performing such services.
    5. In exceptional circumstances for good cause shown, the Select Committee on Ethics may waive the applicability of any provision of the Senate Code of Official Conduct to an employee hired on a per diem basis.
    6. (a) The supervisor of an individual who performs services for any Member, committee, or office of the Senate for a period in excess of four weeks and who receives compensation therefor from any source other than the United States Government shall report to the Select Committee on Ethics with respect to the utilization of the services of such individual.
    (b) A report under subparagraph (a) shall be made with respect to an individual
    (1) when such individual begins performing services described in such subparagraph;
    (2) at the close of each calendar quarter while such individual is performing such services; and
    (3) when such individual ceases to perform such services.
    Each such report shall include the identity of the source of the compensation received by such individual and the amount or rate of compensation paid by such source.
    © No report shall be required under subparagraph (a) with respect to an individual who normally performs services for a Member, committee, or office for less than eight hours a week.
    (d) For purposes of this paragraph, the supervisor of an individual shall be determined under paragraph 11 of rule XXXVII.
    Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 – Department of Defense – Title I: Military Personnel – Appropriates funds for FY2008 for active-duty and reserve personnel in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and for National Guard personnel in the Army and Air Force.
    Title II: Operation and Maintenance – Appropriates funds for FY2008 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) environmental restoration for the military departments, the Department of Defense (DOD), and at formerly used defense sites; (3) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (4) former Soviet Union threat reduction.
    Title III: Procurement – Appropriates funds for FY2008 for procurement by the Armed Forces of aircraft, missiles, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. Appropriates funds for: (1) defense-wide procurement; (2) National Guard and reserve equipment; and (3) certain procurements under the Defense Production Act of 1950.
    Title IV: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation – Appropriates funds for FY2008 for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) by the Armed Forces and defense agencies. Appropriates funds for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
    Title V: Revolving and Management Funds – Appropriates funds for: (1) the Defense Working Capital Funds; and (2) programs under the National Defense Sealift Fund.
    Title VI: Other Department of Defense Programs – Appropriates funds for: (1) the Defense Health Program; (2) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions; (3) drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense; (4) the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund; and (5) the Office of the Inspector General.
    Title VII: Related Agencies – Appropriates funds for the: (1) Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund; and (2) Intelligence Community Management Account.
    Title VIII: General Provisions – Specifies authorized, restricted, and prohibited uses of authorized funds.
    (Sec. 8006) Requires a report from DOD to the defense committees to establish the baseline for application of FY2008 reprogramming and transfer authorities.
    (Sec. 8010) Authorizes procurement funds to be used for a multiyear procurement contract for: (1) the Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter; (2) M1A2 Abrams system enhancement package upgrades; (3) M2A3/M3A3 Bradley upgrades; and (4) the Virginia class submarine.
    (Sec. 8012) Prohibits, during FY2008, the management by end strengths of DOD civilian personnel.
    (Sec. 8023) Authorizes DOD to incur obligations of up to $350 million for DOD military compensation, construction projects, and supplies and services in anticipation of receipts of contributions from the government of Kuwait.
    (Sec. 8025) Prohibits the use of funds from this Act to establish a new federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). Limits the federal compensation to be paid to FFRDC members or consultants. Prohibits the use of FY2008 funds for new building construction, cost-sharing payments for projects funded by government grants, absorption of cost overruns, or certain charitable contributions. Limits the staff years of technical effort that may be funded for FFRDCs from FY2008 funds. Reduces, by $57.725 million, the total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs.
    (Sec. 8026) Provides Buy American requirements with respect to the DOD procurement of carbon, alloy, or armor steel plating.
    (Sec. 8029) Requires the Secretary of Defense (Secretary) to report to Congress on the amount of DOD purchases from foreign entities in FY2008.
    (Sec. 8032) Authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to convey to Indian tribes located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units currently located at Grand Forks and Minot Air Force Bases that are excess to the needs of the Air Force. Requires the Operation Walking Shield Program to resolve any housing unit conflicts arising after such conveyance.
    (Sec. 8038) Makes specified DOD O&M funds available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts on Indian lands resulting from DOD activities.
    (Sec. 8039) Prohibits the use of funds: (1) by a DOD entity without compliance with the Buy American Act; (2) to establish additional field operating agencies of DOD elements, except for those funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Army agencies established to eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised explosive devices; (3) for assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, unless specifically appropriated for such purpose; and (4) to reduce the civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003, level.
    (Sec. 8043) Rescinds specified funds from various accounts under prior defense appropriations Acts.
    (Sec. 8048) Prohibits the transfer to any other department or agency, except as specifically provided in an appropriations law, of funds available to DOD or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for drug interdiction or counter-drug activities.
    (Sec. 8052) Prohibits current fiscal year DOD funds from being obligated or expended to transfer to another nation or international organization defense articles or services for use in any United Nations (UN) peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation, or for any other international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation, unless specified congressional committees are given 15 days’ advance notice.
    (Sec. 8059) Makes DOD funds available to provide transportation of medical supplies and equipment to: (1) American Samoa; and (2) the Indian Health Service in conjunction with a civil-military project.
    (Sec. 8060) Prohibits funds from being used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government.
    (Sec. 8061) Authorizes the Secretary, on a case-by-case basis, to waive limitations on the procurement of defense items from a foreign country if: (1) the Secretary determines that such limitations would invalidate cooperative or reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of defense items; and (2) such country does not discriminate against the same or similar defense items procured in the United States for that country. Provides exceptions.
    (Sec. 8062) Prohibits the use of appropriated funds to support a unit of the security forces of a foreign country if credible information exists that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken. Requires the monitoring of such information. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such prohibition under extraordinary circumstances (requiring a report to the defense committees on any such waiver).
    (Sec. 8067) Provides for the crediting during the current fiscal year of certain refunds attributable to the use of government travel or purchase cards or refunds for travel arranged by a government-contracted travel management center.
    (Sec. 8068) Prohibits appropriated funds from being used for a mission critical or mission essential financial management information technology system that is not registered with the DOD Chief Information Officer. Prohibits such a system from receiving a Milestone A or B approval, or full rate production approval, until the Chief Information Officer certifies to the defense committees that the system is being developed in accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
    (Sec. 8070) Authorizes members of the National Guard performing full-time duty to support ground-based elements of the National Ballistic Missile Defense System.
    (Sec. 8071) Prohibits appropriated funds from being used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity specified armor-piercing ammunition, except to an entity performing demilitarization services for DOD.
    (Sec. 8072) Authorizes the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to waive payment for the lease of non-excess DOD personal property to certain, youth, social, or fraternal nonprofit organizations.
    (Sec. 8079) Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a program to distribute surplus DOD dental and medical equipment to Indian Health Service facilities and federally-qualified health centers.
    (Sec. 8080) Earmarks specified RDT&E funds for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel’s defense requirements.
    (Sec. 8081) Makes Navy shipbuilding and conversion funds available to fund prior-year shipbuilding cost increases, allocating such funds among specified naval accounts.
    (Sec. 8086) Appropriates funds for a grant by the Secretary of the Army to facilitate access by veterans to opportunities for skilled employment in the construction industry.
    (Sec. 8087) Appropriates funds for assistance to public schools that have unusually high concentrations of special needs military dependents enrolled.
    (Sec. 8088) Directs: (1) DOD and the Army to make future budgetary and programming plans to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Objective Force cannon and ammunition resupply capability in order to field such system in FY2010; and (2) the Army to ensure that budgetary and programmatic plans will provide for no fewer than seven Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
    (Sec. 8089) Appropriates funds to DOD for nine specified grants by the Secretary.
    (Sec. 8091) Requires the FY2009 budget to include separate budget justification documents for costs of U.S. Armed Forces’ participation in contingency operations for the military personnel, O&M, and procurement accounts.
    (Sec. 8092) Prohibits funds from being used for RDT&E, procurement, or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.
    (Sec. 8094) Prohibits the availability of funds for integration of foreign intelligence information unless such information has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized foreign intelligence activities.
    (Sec. 8095) Requires Ready Reserve members who are called or ordered to active duty in time of national emergency to be notified of their expected mobilization period at the time they are called or ordered. Allows the Secretary to waive such requirement in order to respond to a national security emergency or meet dire operational requirements.
    (Sec. 8097) Reduces by $506.9 million the total amount appropriated in titles II, III, and IV of this Act, for contractor efficiencies.
    (Sec. 8099) Authorizes the Secretary to present promotional materials, including a U.S. flag and other recognition items, to any member who participates in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom, in conjunction with any week-long national observation and day of national celebration.
    (Sec. 8101) Earmarks funds for the operations and development of training and technology for the Joint Interagency Training and Education Center and affiliated Center for National Response at the Memorial Tunnel.
    (Sec. 8104) Reduces by $1.353 billion the total amount appropriated in titles II through V of this Act, to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions.
    (Sec. 8111) Directs the Secretary to create a major force program category for space for DOD’s future years defense program.
    (Sec. 8112) Appropriates funds to the Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund in connection with a tanker acquisition program.
    (Sec. 8113) Prohibits the use of funds to: (1) establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq; or (2) exercise U.S. control over any oil resource of Iraq.
    (Sec. 8114) Prohibits the use of funds in contravention of specified laws or regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
    (Sec. 8116) Requires any request for funds for a fiscal year after 2008 for an ongoing military operation overseas, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, to be included in the annual budget of the President for that fiscal year.
    (Sec. 8118) Authorizes the transfer of specified funds to the Secretary of the Interior for construction expenses at the USS ARIZONA Memorial Museum and Visitors Center.
    (Sec. 8119) Requires DOD to complete work on the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions, including those stored at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, by the deadline established by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and in no circumstances later than December 30, 2017. Requires a report from the Secretary to specified congressional leaders and the defense committees, at the end of 2007 and every 180 days afterwards until compliance, on DOD progress toward such stockpile destruction.
    (Sec. 8120) Amends the Senate Rules to state that it is not a gift for a Member (or a Senate employee making a reservation for that Member) to make more than one reservation on scheduled flights with participating airlines when such action assists the Member in conducting official business.
    (Sec. 8121) Directs the Secretary to establish and maintain on the DOD Internet homepage a direct link to the website of the DOD Office of the Inspector General.
    (Sec. 8122) Appropriates funds for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund, for use in connection with research and development, upgrades, and procurement of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. Directs the Secretary, after five days’ prior notification to the defense committees, to transfer such funds to O&M, procurement, and RDT&E appropriations for such purposes. Designates such funds as an emergency requirement.
    Division B: Further Continuing Appropriations, 2008 – (Sec. 101) Amends the joint resolution making continuing appropriations for FY2008 to extend the November 16, 2007, expiration date to December 14, 2007.
    (Sec. 102) Amends such joint resolution to add provisions which: (1) continue through the December 14, 2007, date the budget authority of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983; (2) provide amounts for the rate of operations for the Department of Commerce’s periodic censuses and programs; (3) designate certain obligations as emergency requirements; (4) appropriate a specified amount for Charles Davis, widower of JoAnn Davis, late a Representative from Virginia; (5) provide amounts and rates of operations for specified accounts and programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Veterans Health Administration; (6) continue through the December 14, 2007, date the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance for certain aircraft and related property placed into federal service; (7) make additional appropriations for the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management for wildfire management; (8) make additional appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief; and (9) make additional appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Fund for grants to Louisiana under that state’s Road Home program.

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:24pm

    My benefits expired in March , when the bill passes do I call to reopen my claim or should I do it now? Does anyone know how that is going to work?

  • CaliDeb 05/25/2008 5:27pm

    Each state may handle it differently yet I believe most states will proactively notify everyone who is eligible and advise them how to proceed in order to submit your claim.

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:35pm

    ok thanks CaliDeb

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:38pm

    one more question, from what I’ve read they are predicting a veto and a revised bill that Bush will eventually sign. This could take until July. Does that mean we are looking at another 8 weeks before this passes?

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:48pm

    If they revise the bill there will probably be no UI extension.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:41pm

    More “longest posts in history” again I see. I’m going to wear out my damn mouse.

  • stubsnews 05/25/2008 5:41pm

    loida79 -
    Did your benefit year end (BYE) in March or did your benefits end because your account was at zero?

  • stubsnews 05/25/2008 5:43pm

    sign in and click those red thumbs down buttons, feels great

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:44pm

    My 26 weeks was up in March but my benefit year does not end until august

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:53pm

    Sometimes signing in makes things worse here. Been there done that.

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:53pm

    Wow, so this is still not anything to get too happy about. Chances are if Bush decides to veto like he promised then we could get left out again just like in February.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 5:54pm

    SIGN IN ON THIS….There are three types of appropriations measures. Regular appropriations bills
    provide most of the funding that is provided in all appropriations measures for a
    fiscal year, and must be enacted by October 1 of each year. If regular bills are not
    enacted by the deadline, Congress adopts continuing resolutions to continue funding
    generally until regular bills are enacted. Supplemental appropriations bills provide
    additional appropriations and are typically considered later.
    Each year Congress considers a budget resolution that, in part, sets spending
    ceilings for the upcoming fiscal year. Both the House and Senate have established
    parliamentary rules that may be used to enforce certain spending ceilings associated
    with the budget resolution during consideration of appropriations measures in the
    House and Senate, respectively.
    Congress has also established an authorization-appropriation process that
    provides for two separate types of measures — authorization bills and appropriation
    bills. These measures perform different functions and are to be considered in
    sequence. First, authorization bills establish, continue, or modify agencies or
    programs. Second, appropriations measures may provide spending for the agencies
    and programs previously authorized.
    Congress annually considers several appropriations measures, which provide
    funding for numerous activities, such as national defense, education, homeland
    security, crime, and general government operations. These measures are considered
    by Congress under certain rules and practices, referred to as the congressional
    appropriations process. This report discusses the following aspects of this process:
    ! annual appropriations cycle;
    ! appropriations measures (types);
    ! spending ceilings for appropriations associated with the annual
    budget resolution; and
    ! relationship between authorization and appropriation measures.
    When considering appropriations measures, Congress is exercising the power
    granted to it under the Constitution, which states, “No money shall be drawn from
    the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”1 The power to
    appropriate is a legislative power. Congress has enforced its prerogatives with laws
    setting limits on U.S. government officials. A U.S. government employee, for
    example, may not commit the government to spend more than the amount
    appropriated by law and may not make such government funding obligations before
    an appropriation funding those activities becomes law, unless such action is
    statutorily authorized.2 An appropriation may be used only for the programs and
    activities for which Congress made the appropriation, except as otherwise provided
    by law.3
    The President has an important role in the appropriations process by virtue of
    his constitutional power to approve or veto entire measures, unless Congress
    overrides a veto. He also has influence, in part, because of various duties imposed
    by statute, such as submitting an annual budget to Congress.
    The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have jurisdiction over the
    annual appropriations measures. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, both
    committees reorganized their subcommittees. Each committee now has 12
    subcommittees and each subcommittee has jurisdiction over an annual
    appropriations measure that provides funding for departments and agencies under the
    subcommittee’s jurisdiction.4
    The jurisdictions of these House and Senate appropriations subcommittees are
    generally parallel. That is, each House appropriations subcommittee is paired with
    a Senate appropriations subcommittee and the two subcommittees’ jurisdictions are
    generally identical.
    The President initiates the appropriations process by submitting his annual
    budget for the upcoming fiscal year5 to Congress. He is required to submit his annual
    budget on or before the first Monday in February.6 Congress has, however, provided
    deadline extensions; both statutorily and, sometimes, informally.7
    The President recommends spending levels for various programs and agencies
    of the federal government in the form of budget authority (or BA) because Congress
    provides budget authority instead of cash to agencies. Budget authority is the
    authority provided by federal law to incur financial obligations that will result in
    immediate or future expenditures (or outlays) involving federal funds. Examples of
    financial obligations include entering into contracts to build a submarine or purchase
    supplies. The resulting outlays are payments from the Treasury, usually in the form
    of checks or electronic funds transfers.
    An FY2006 appropriations act, for example, provided $1.6 billion in new
    budget authority for FY2006 to the Department of Defense (DOD) to build a nuclear
    attack submarine. That is, the act gave DOD legal authority to sign contracts to build
    the submarine. The department could not commit the government to pay more than
    $1.6 billion. The outlays occur when government payments are made to the
    contractor.
    An appropriation is a type of budget authority that not only provides the
    authority to make obligations, but also gives the agency legal authority to make the
    subsequent payments from the Treasury. Appropriations must be obligated in the
    fiscal year(s) for which they are provided. Appropriations measures provide new
    budget authority (as opposed to previously enacted budget authority).
    Not all new budget authority provided for a fiscal year is expended that year.
    For example, in the case of construction projects, the outlays may occur over several
    years as various stages of the project are completed.
    In other cases, such as federal employee salaries, the outlays may occur in the same
    fiscal year for which the appropriations are provided.
    As Congress considers appropriations measures providing new budget authority
    for a particular fiscal year, discussions on the resulting outlays only involve
    estimates. Data on the actual outlays for a fiscal year are not available until the fiscal

    The budget resolution is never sent to the President, nor does it become law. It
    does not provide budget authority or raise or lower revenues; instead, it is a guide for
    the House and Senate as they consider various budget-related bills, including
    appropriations and tax measures. Both the House and Senate have established
    parliamentary rules to enforce some of these spending ceilings when appropriations
    measures are considered on the House or Senate floor, respectively. (For more
    details, see “Spending Ceilings for Appropriations Measures” section below).
    The Congressional Budget Act provides an April 15 deadline for final
    congressional adoption of the budget resolution. However, during the 31 fiscal years
    Congress has considered budget resolutions (FY1976-FY2006), Congress frequently
    did not meet this deadline. For three of those years (FY1999, FY2003, and FY2005),
    Congress never completed a budget resolution.11
    While there is no penalty if the budget resolution is not completed or is tardy,
    there may be significant difficulties. First, certain enforceable spending ceilings
    associated with the budget resolution are not established until the budget resolution
    is completed. Second, under the Congressional Budget Act, the Senate can not
    consider appropriations legislation for the upcoming fiscal year until (1) Congress
    completes the budget resolution and (2) Senate Committee on Appropriations
    receives its spending allocations. Furthermore, a three-fifths vote of all Senators (60
    Senators, if there are no vacancies) is required in the Senate to waive this rule or
    appeal the presiding officer’s ruling on a point of order under this rule.12
    The Congressional Budget Act prohibits House consideration of appropriations
    measures for the first fiscal year of the budget resolution until Congress completes
    the budget resolution. But, it provides an exception. Even if the budget resolution
    is not in place, the House may begin considering most appropriations measures13 after
    May 15. No similar exception exists in the Senate.
    If Congress delays completion of the annual budget resolution (or does not
    complete the resolution), each chamber may adopt a deeming resolution to address
    these procedural difficulties.14
    the House of Representatives initiated consideration of
    appropriations measures and the Senate subsequently amended the House-passed
    bills. For the FY1998 through FY2005 regular appropriations bills,15 the Senate
    appropriations subcommittees and committee did not generally wait for the House
    bill; instead, they reported original Senate bills. Under this non-traditional approach,
    both House and Senate appropriations committees and their subcommittees were
    often considering the regular bills simultaneously. The Senate returned to the
    traditional practice, however, for the FY2006 and FY2007 regular appropriations
    bills.
    The House Committee on Appropriations reports the 12 regular appropriations
    bills separately to the full House. The committee begins reporting the bills in May
    or June, completing all or almost all of them by July or the annual August recess.
    Generally, the full House begins consideration of the regular appropriations bills in
    May or June as well, passing most by July or the recess.
    For FY2006 and FY2007, the Senate appropriations committee reported all or
    almost all of the House-passed bills, with its amendments, before the August recess.
    For FY2006, the Senate passed about half of the bills before the August recess and
    the remaining bills in September and October.16
    For half of the past 10 years (FY1998-FY2007), neither chamber passed all the
    regular appropriations bills.17 The regular bills that did not pass were generally
    funded in omnibus appropriations measures (see “Regular Appropriations Bills”
    section below).18
    During the fall, the appropriations committees are usually heavily involved in
    conferences to resolve differences between the two chambers. Relatively little or no
    time is left before the fiscal year begins to resolve what may be wide disparities
    between the House and Senate, to say nothing of those between Congress and the
    President. Congress is usually faced with the need to enact one or more temporary
    continuing resolutions pending the final disposition of the regular appropriations
    bills.19
    After the President submits his budget, the House and Senate appropriations
    subcommittees hold hearings on the segments of the budget under their jurisdiction.
    They focus on the details of the agencies’ justifications, primarily obtaining
    testimony from agency officials.
    After the hearings have been completed and the House and Senate
    appropriations committees have generally received their spending ceilings, the
    subcommittees begin to mark up20 the regular bills under their jurisdiction and report
    them to their respective full committees. Under the traditional practice, which the
    Senate resumed for the FY2006 and FY2007 regular bills, each Senate subcommittee
    would wait to amend the House-passed bill. Both appropriations committees
    consider each of their subcommittee’s recommendations separately. The committees
    may adopt amendments to a subcommittee’s recommendations and then report the
    bill as amended to their respective floors for action.
    After the House or Senate appropriations committee reports an appropriations
    bill to the House or Senate, respectively, the bill is brought to the floor. At this point,
    Representatives or Senators are generally provided an opportunity to propose floor
    amendments to the bill.
    Prior to floor consideration of a regular appropriations bill, the House
    generally considers a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules setting
    parameters for floor consideration of the bill.21 If the House adopts the special rule,
    it usually considers the appropriations bill immediately.
    The House considers the bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the State
    of the Union (or Committee of the Whole) of which all Representatives are
    members.22 A special rule on an appropriations bill usually provides for one hour of
    general debate on the bill. The debate includes opening statements by the chair and
    ranking minority member23 of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over
    the regular bill, as well as other interested Representatives.
    After the Committee of the Whole debates the bill, it considers amendments.
    A regular appropriations bill is generally read for amendment, by paragraph.24
    Amendments must meet requirements of theHouse standing rules and precedents, for example, amendments must
    be germane to the bill;
    ! congressional budget process (see “Spending Ceilings for
    Appropriations Measures” section below);
    ! authorization-appropriation process, which enforces the relationship
    between authorization and appropriation measures (see
    “Relationship Between the Authorization and Appropriation
    Measures” section below); and
    ! special rule providing for consideration of the particular bill.
    If an amendment violates any of these requirements, any Representative may raise
    a point of order to that effect. If the presiding officer rules the amendment out of
    order, it cannot be considered on the House floor. The special rule may waive any
    of these requirements, thereby allowing the House to consider the amendment.
    During consideration of individual regular appropriations bills, the House
    sometimes sets additional parameters, either by adopting a special rule or by
    unanimous consent. That is, the House agrees to the new parameters only if no
    Representative objects. For example, the House sometimes agrees to limit debate on
    individual amendments by unanimous consent.
    After the Committee of the Whole completes consideration of the measure, it
    rises (dissolves) and reports the bill with any adopted amendments to the full House.
    The House then votes on the adopted amendments and passage. After House
    passage, the bill is sent to the Senate.
    Senate. The full Senate considers the bill as reported by its appropriations
    committee.25 The Senate does not utilize the device of a special rule to set
    parameters for consideration of bills. Before taking up the bill, however, or during
    its consideration, the Senate sometimes sets parameters by unanimous consent.
    When the bill is brought up on the floor, the chair and ranking minority member
    of the appropriations subcommittee make opening statements on the contents of the
    bill as reported.
    Committee and floor amendments to the reported bills must meet requirements
    under the Senate standing rules and precedents, congressional budget process,
    authorization-appropriation process, as well as requirements agreed to by unanimous
    consent. The specifics of the Senate and House requirements differ, including the
    waiver procedures. The Senate, in contrast to the House, does not consider floor amendments in the
    order of the bill. Senators may propose amendments to any portion of the bill at any
    time unless the Senate agrees to set limits. Generally, members of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees
    having jurisdiction over a particular regular appropriations bill, and the chair and
    ranking minority members of the full committees meet to negotiate over differences
    between the House- and Senate-passed bills.27
    Under House and Senate rules, the negotiators (or conferees or managers) are
    generally required to remain within the scope of the differences between the positions
    of the two chambers.28 Their agreement must be within the range established by the
    House- and Senate-passed versions. For example, if the House-passed bill
    appropriates $3 million for a program and a separate Senate amendment provides $5
    million, the conferees must reach an agreement that is within the $3-$5 million range.
    However, these rules are not always followed.29
    The Senate typically passes a single substitute amendment to each House bill.
    In such instances, the conferees must reach agreement on all points of difference
    between the House and Senate versions before reporting the conference report in
    agreement to both houses. When this occurs, the conferees propose a new conference
    substitute for the bill as a whole. The conferees attach a joint explanatory statement
    (or managers’ statement) explaining the new substitute.
    Usually, the House considers conference reports on appropriations measures
    first because it traditionally considers the measures first. The first house to consider
    a conference report has the option of voting to recommit the report to the conference
    for further consideration, rejecting the conference report, or adopting it. After the
    first house adopts the conference report, the conference is automatically disbanded;
    therefore, the second house has two options — adopt or reject the conference report.
    Conference reports cannot be amended in either the House or Senate.
    If the conference report is rejected, or is recommitted by the first house, the
    conferees negotiate further over the matters in dispute between the two houses.30 The measure cannot be sent to the President until both houses have agreed to the entire
    text of the bill. After Congress sends the bill to the President, he has 10 days to sign or veto the
    measure. If he takes no action, the bill automatically becomes law at the end of the
    10-day period. Conversely, if he takes no action when Congress has adjourned, he
    may pocket veto the bill.
    If the President vetoes the bill, he sends it back to Congress. Congress may
    override the veto by a two-thirds vote in both houses. If Congress successfully
    overrides the veto, the bill becomes law. If Congress is unsuccessful, the bill dies.
    There are three major types appropriations measures: regular appropriations
    bills, continuing resolutions, and supplementals. Of the three types, regular
    appropriations bills typically provide most of the funding. The House and Senate annually consider several regular appropriations
    measures. Each House and Senate appropriations subcommittee has jurisdiction over
    one regular bill. Due to the House and Senate appropriations committees’ recent
    reorganization, therefore, each chamber will consider 12 regular bills.
    Regular appropriations bills contain a series of unnumbered paragraphs with
    headings; each is generally an account. The basic unit of appropriation is the
    account. Under these measures, funding for each department and large independent
    agency is distributed among several accounts. Each account, generally, includes
    similar programs, projects, or items, such as a “research and development” account
    or “salaries and expenses” account. For small agencies, a single account may fund
    all of the agency’s activities. These acts typically provide a lump-sum amount for
    each of these accounts. A few accounts include a single program, project, or item,
    which the appropriations acts fund individually.
    In report language,32 the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    provide more detailed directions to the department and agencies on the distribution
    of funding among various activities funded within an account. Funding for most
    local projects are included in report language, as opposed to the text of the
    appropriations bill. Appropriations measures may also provide transfer authority.33 Transfers shift
    budget authority from one account or fund to another. For example, if the DOD
    moved budget authority from the “Aircraft Procurement, Navy” account to the
    “Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy” account, that would be a transfer. Agencies
    are prohibited from making such transfers without statutory authority.
    In contrast, agencies may generally shift budget authority from one activity to
    another within an account without such statutory authority; this activity is referred
    to as reprogramming.34 The appropriations subcommittees have established
    notification and other oversight procedures for the various agencies to follow
    regarding reprogramming actions. Generally, these procedures differ with each
    subcommittee.
    Congress has traditionally considered and approved each regular appropriations
    bill separately, but Congress has recently combined bills together. For 18 of the past
    31 years (FY1977-FY2007), Congress packaged two or more regular appropriations
    bills together in one measure, or, in the case of FY2001, into two measures.35 These
    packages are referred to as omnibus measures or mini-bus measures.36
    In these cases, Congress typically began consideration of each regular bill
    separately, but generally in conference combined some of the bills together. During
    conference on a single regular appropriations bill, the conferees typically included
    in the conference report final agreements on other outstanding regular appropriations
    bills, thereby creating an omnibus or minibus appropriations measure.
    Packaging, was used for nine consecutive fiscal years beginning for FY1980. The first two of those years (FY1980-FY1981) occurred while President Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and the remaining seven were during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Since that time, it has been used nine times —five during President William Jefferson Clinton’s presidency (FY1996-FY1997 and FY1999-FY2001) and four while President George W. Bush has been in the White
    House (FY2003-FY2005 and FY2007).
    In two of the years (FY1987 and FY1988) during Ronald Reagan’s presidency,
    all the bills were enacted together, and in two years (FY2003 and FY2007) while
    President George W. Bush has been in the White House, all but two bills were
    enacted together. (From FY1977 through FY2005, Congress annually considered 13
    regular appropriations bills and, for FY2006 and FY2007, Congress generally
    considered 11 regular bills.)37
    Packaging regular appropriations bills can be an efficient means of resolving
    outstanding differences within Congress and between Congress and the President.
    The negotiators can make more convenient trade-offs between issues among several
    bills. During the 2005 reorganization of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
    the House committee reduced the number of its subcommittees from 13 to 10 and the Senate
    committee reduced its number from 13 to 12. The full House committee had jurisdiction
    over one bill. The House, therefore, initially considered 11 regular bills and the Senate
    considered 12. During consideration of the appropriations bills, the Senate combined two
    bills, resulting in 11 regular bills. Regular appropriations bills expire at the end of the fiscal year. If action on one
    or more regular appropriations measures has not been completed by the deadline, the
    agencies funded by these bills must cease nonessential activities due to lack of budget
    authority. Traditionally, continuing appropriations have been used to maintain
    temporary funding to agencies and programs until the regular bills are enacted. Such
    appropriations continuing funding are usually provided in a joint resolution, hence
    the term continuing resolution (or CR).
    In November and again in December 1995, FY1996 continuing resolutions
    expired and some regular appropriations bills had not been enacted. As a result,
    nonessential activities that would have been funded in those regular bills stopped and
    federal workers hired to perform those services did not report for duty.
    In 26 of the past 31 years (FY1977-FY2007), Congress and the President did not
    complete action on a majority of the regular bills by the start of the fiscal year .
    In eight years, they did not finish any of the bills by the deadline. They
    completed action on all the bills on schedule only four times: FY1977, FY1989,
    FY1995, and FY1997.
    On or before the deadline, Congress and the President generally complete action
    on an initial continuing resolution that temporarily funds the outstanding regular
    appropriations bills. In contrast to funding practices in regular bills (i.e., providing
    appropriations for each account), temporary continuing resolutions generally provide
    funding by a rate and/or formula. Recently, the continuing resolutions have generally
    provided a rate at the levels provided in the previous fiscal year. The initial CR
    typically provides temporary funding until a specific date or until the enactment of
    the applicable regular appropriations acts, if earlier. Once the initial CR becomes
    law, additional interim continuing resolutions are frequently utilized to sequentially
    extend the expiration date. These subsequent continuing resolutions sometimes
    change the funding methods. Over the past 31 fiscal years, Congress has approved,
    on average, four continuing resolutions each year
    Congress frequently considers one or more supplemental appropriations
    measures for a fiscal year that provide additional funds for specified activities.
    Supplementals may provide funding for unforeseen needs (such as funds to recover
    from a hurricane, earthquake or flood); or increase or provide funding for other
    activities. These measures, like regular appropriations bills, provide specific
    amounts of funding for individual accounts in the bill. Sometimes Congress includes
    supplemental appropriations in regular bills and continuing resolutions.
    During a calendar year, Congress typically considers, at least
    ! 12 regular appropriations bills for the fiscal year that begins on
    October 1;
    ! several continuing resolutions for the same fiscal year; and
    ! one or more supplementals for the previous fiscal year. Congress established the congressional budget process through which it
    annually sets spending ceilings associated with the budget resolution and enforces
    those ceilings with parliamentary rules, or points of order, during congressional
    consideration of appropriations billsAs mentioned previously, within each chamber, the total budget authority and
    outlays included in the annual budget resolution are distributed among the House and
    Senate committees with jurisdiction over spending, including the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations. Through this allocation process, the budget
    resolution sets total spending ceilings for each House and Senate committee (referred
    to as the 302(a) allocations).39 providing 302(a) allocations to the House
    Committee on Appropriations for FY2006.
    includes allocations for discretionary spending and mandatory
    spending. Congress divides budget authority and the resulting outlays into two
    categories: discretionary spending and mandatory spending (including net interest40).
    Discretionary spending is controlled by the annual appropriations acts, which are
    under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In
    contrast, mandatory spending is controlled by authorization (or legislative) acts under
    the jurisdiction of the authorization (or legislative) committees (principally the House
    Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance).41
    Appropriations measures include all the discretionary spending and some of the
    mandatory spending.
    Discretionary spending provides funds for a wide variety of activities, such as
    those described in the “Introduction” above, whereas mandatory spending primarily
    funds entitlement programs42 as well as other mandatory spending programs. Of total
    actual outlays for FY2006, only 38% was discretionary spending; the remaining 62%
    was mandatory spending (9% was net interest).
    Regarding the distribution of discretionary spending outlays for FY2006, 51%
    of the outlays was for defense activities, 45% for domestic activities, and 4% for
    international activities.
    The mandatory spending provided in appropriations measures is predominantly
    for entitlement programs, referred to as appropriated entitlements. Appropriated
    entitlements are funded through a two-step process. First, authorizing legislation
    becomes law that sets program parameters (through eligibility requirements and
    benefit levels, for example); then the appropriations committees must provide the
    budget authority needed to meet the commitment. The appropriations committees
    have little control over the amount of budget authority provided, since the amount
    needed is the result of previously enacted commitments in legislative law.43
    Instead of directly controlling outlays, Congress controls discretionary spending
    by setting levels of new budget authority for specific activities, programs, and
    agencies in annual appropriations measures. Congress could have, for example,
    provided $2.6 billion in new budget authority to build the nuclear attack submarine,
    mentioned earlier, instead of $1.6 billion.
    Congress also controls mandatory spending by controlling budget authority. It
    does not, however, generally control this form of budget authority by setting specific
    spending levels. It controls mandatory spending by establishing parameters for
    government commitments in permanent law, such as Social Security benefit levels
    and eligibility requirements.
    After the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations receive their 302(a)
    allocations, they separately divide their allocations among their subcommittees,
    providing each subcommittee with a ceiling. These subdivisions are referred to as
    the 302(b) allocations.44 providing the House Committee on Appropriations’
    initial 302(b) allocations of discretionary, mandatory, and total spending for FY2006.
    Making 302(b) allocations is within the jurisdiction of the House and Senate
    appropriations committees, and they typically make revisions to reflect action on the
    appropriations bills. The spending ceilings associated with the annual budget resolution that apply
    to appropriations measures are generally for a single fiscal year (the upcoming fiscal
    year), since appropriations measures are annual.45 If the budget resolution is
    significantly delayed (or is never completed), there are no total spending ceilings,
    302(a) allocations, or 302(b) allocations to enforce until the budget resolution is
    completed. In such instances, the House and Senate have often adopted separate
    deeming resolutions providing, at least, temporary 302(a) allocations, thereby,
    establishing some enforceable spending ceilings.46
    Since Congress was not expected to adopt a FY2007 budget resolution, both the
    House and Senate adopted separate deeming resolutions last year. The House
    adopted a special rule47 that, in part, deemed the House-adopted FY2007 budget
    resolution48 and accompanying committee report in effect for enforcement purposes.
    As a result, the FY2007 total spending ceilings and 302(a) allocations (and therefore,
    subsequent 302(b) allocations) are in effect.49 The Senate included in a FY2006
    supplemental appropriations act a deeming provision that, in part, set FY2007 302(a)
    allocations for the Senate Committee on Appropriations Certain spending ceilings associated with the budget resolution are enforced
    through points of order raised on the House and Senate floors when the
    appropriations measures are considered. These points of order are not self-enforcing.
    A Representative or Senator must raise a point of order that a measure, amendment,
    or conference report violates a specific rule. Generally, if a Member raises a point
    of order below and the presiding officer rules that the measure, amendment, or
    conference report violates the parliamentary rule, it may not be considered on the
    floor. Two Congressional Budget Act points of order, 302(f) and 311(a),51
    as well as a separate order in the House52 are available to enforce certain spending
    ceilings associated with the annual budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Act
    points of order apply to committee-reported appropriations bills,53 certain nonreported
    appropriations bills,54 amendments, and conference reports to these
    measures; they do not apply to appropriations bills amended on the floor. The
    separate order, however, provides a procedure to enforce the 302(b) ceilings for
    certain amended appropriations measures during the 110th Congress.
    The 302(f) point of order prohibits floor consideration of such legislation55 and
    conference reports that provide budget authority exceeding the committee or
    subcommittee allocations of new budget authority (the 302(a) or 302(b) allocations,
    respectively). In effect, this point of order applies to total discretionary spending
    (and any mandatory spending changes initiated on the appropriations measures).56
    For example, the reported FY2006 Agriculture regular appropriations bill could not
    have exceeded the Agriculture subcommittee’s total discretionary spending allocation
    for FY2006 — $16.832 billion
    These refer to sections 302(f) and 311(a), respectively, of the Congressional Budget Act
    (see also, section 403 of H.Res. 6 (110th Cong.).
    52 A separate order is a provision that is not a part of the House Standing Rules, but is
    provided under the rulemaking authority of the House. Section 511(a)(5) of H.Res. 6 (110th
    Cong.) established the separate order, which is identical to a separate order established in
    the previous Congress (section 2 of H.Res. 248 (109th Cong.).
    53 The House Committee on Appropriations almost always reports regular and major
    supplemental appropriations bills. It, however, does not generally report continuing
    resolutions.
    54 If a special rule expedites consideration of a measure by ordering the previous question
    directly to passage, the form of the measure considered is subject to the points of order.
    Some continuing resolutions are considered by this procedure.
    55 In this context, legislation refers the committee-reported and non-committee reported bills
    as well as amendments to those bills. This definition contrasts with “legislation” as it is
    defined for purposes of the authorization-appropriation process (see “Relationship Between
    Authorization and Appropriation Measures” below).
    56 It does not affect increased mandatory spending that the appropriators are required to
    provide. For example, if the House Committee on Appropriations is required to increase
    new budget authority for unemployment compensation due to a recession, such budget
    authority would not be subject to the point of order.
    57 Although the 302(f) point of order in the House enforces new budget authority ceilings,
    under House rules certain offset amendments must remain within the total new budget
    authority and outlay levels provided in the bill. Due to the 302(f) point of order, Members
    frequently must decrease budget authority in a bill for certain activities in order to finance
    increases in funding for other activities in order to stay within the 302(a) or 302(b)
    allocations (the decreases are referred to as offsets.) An amendment providing both the
    increases and decreases is referred to as an offset amendment. Frequently, the increases and
    offsets Members prefer are not located in the same place in the bill, and the affected
    segments would normally be considered at different times on the House floor.
    Offset amendments that amend the text of the bill in more than one place must remain
    within the total new budget authority and outlay levels provided in the bill (House Rule
    The 311(a) point of order prohibits floor consideration of such legislation or
    conference reports that would exceed the total new budget authority or outlay ceilings
    in the budget resolution. As Congress acts on various spending bills for a fiscal year,
    the amount of total new budget authority and the resulting outlays accumulate and
    the budget resolution ceilings are eventually reached. An appropriations bill that
    would go over either ceiling is subject to the 311(a) point of order. If all spending
    bills stay within the applicable committee spending ceilings, a bill will not exceed the
    total ceilings established in the budget resolution. However, in the past, some
    funding bills have exceeded their committee ceilings, thereby making the last
    spending bills considered subject to the 311(a) point of order. In the House, the
    Fazio Exception58 exempts certain appropriations from the 311(a) point of order. If
    the House Committee on Appropriations does not exceed its total committee
    allocations, then the appropriations measures, amendments, and conference reports
    are exempt from the 311(a) point of order.59
    For the 110th Congress, the separate order extends enforcement of 302(b)
    allocations to appropriations bills amended in the Committee of the Whole.60
    Regular appropriations bills and major supplemental appropriations measures are
    typically considered for amendment in the Committee of the Whole. The order
    generally establishes a point of order in the Committee of the Whole against a motion
    to rise and report to the House an appropriations bill that, as amended, exceeds the
    applicable 302(b) allocation in new budget authority. If the Presiding Officer
    sustains a point of order against such a motion, the bill does not fall or automatically
    remain in the Committee of the Whole; instead, the Committee of the Whole decides,
    by a vote, whether to adopt the motion even though the amended measure exceeds
    the allocation.61 An offset amendment added at the end of a bill that indirectly effects
    earlier provisions in the bill would not fall under the procedure provided in Rule XXI,
    clause 2(f). However it would still be subject to requirements in section 302. That is, it may
    not cause the bill to exceed new budget authority allocations made pursuant to 302(a) or (b).
    (For more information, see CRS Report RL31055, House Offset Amendments to
    Appropriations Bills: Procedural Considerations, by Sandy Streeter.)
    58 The title of the exception refers to former Representative Victor Herbert Fazio, Jr., (CA).
    59 Section 311© of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.
    60 For general information on the Committee of the Whole, see “House and Senate Floor
    Action, House” above and, for more detailed information, see CRS Report RL32200,
    Debate, Motions, and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole, by Bill Heniff Jr. and
    Elizabeth Rybicki; and CRS Report RS20147, Committee of the Whole: An Introduction, by
    Judy Schneider.
    61 If the committee votes against “rising,” it may consider one proper amendment, such as
    an amendment reducing funds in the bill to bring it into compliance with the allocation. The
    separate order also provides an up-or-down vote on the amendment. Only one such point
    of order may be raised against a measure.
    Special rules providing for the consideration of bills routinely preclude a motion to rise
    and report by ordering the Committee of the Whole to rise and report after all amendments
    have been considered. Since adoption of the original separate order (H.Res. 248 (109th
    Cong.) on April 28, 2005, almost all special rules providing for the consideration of regular
    Order. Significantly, the separate order does not apply to a motion to rise and report
    proposed after the bill has been read for amendment, if offered by the majority leader
    (or a designee).
    The House may waive or suspend the three points of order by adopting, by
    majority vote, a special rule waiving the particular point of order prior to floor
    consideration of the appropriations legislation.
    Two points of order, 302(f) and 311(a),62 enforce spending ceilings
    that affect appropriations measures. The Senate versions of these rules vary from the
    House versions. In the Senate, these points of order apply to all appropriations
    measures, both those reported by the committee and amended on the floor, as well
    as amendments, motions, and conferences reports to these measures.
    The Senate 302(f) point of order prohibits floor consideration of legislation,
    motions, and conference reports that exceed the subcommittee allocations in new
    budget authority and total outlays. In contrast to the House, it does not enforce the
    302(a) allocations. As in the House, this point of order, in effect, applies to total
    discretionary spending (and any mandatory spending changes initiated on the
    appropriations measures). The 311(a) point of order in the Senate is similar to the
    House version; however, it does not include the Fazio Exception.
    Senators may make motions to waive these points of order at the time the issue
    is raised. Currently, a vote of three-fifths of all Senators (60 Senators, if there are no
    vacancies) is required to approve a waiver motion for any of these points of order.
    A vote to appeal the presiding officer’s ruling also requires three-fifths vote of all
    Senators. These super-majority vote requirements expire on September 30, 2010.
    Since 1990, both the House and Senate have,
    generally, developed procedures to exempt from the above spending ceilings funding
    for emergencies. These procedures have evolved; now, budget authority (and
    resulting outlays) designated as emergency spending in appropriations measures,
    amendments, and conference reports are exempt.63
    For FY2007, the House also exempts spending in appropriations legislation and
    conference reports that are designated “for contingency operations directly related to
    appropriations bills have not included such an order, thereby, providing an opportunity for
    Representatives to raise this point of order.
    62 These refer to sections 302(f) and 311(a), respectively, of the Congressional Budget Act.
    63 For current House procedures, see H.Con.Res. 376 (109th Cong.), as adopted by the
    House, sec. 402 and title V. For current Senate procedures, see U.S. Congress, Conference
    Committees, 2005, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, conference
    report to accompany H.Con.Res. 95, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-62 (Washington:
    GPO, 2005), sec. 402; P.L. 109-234, sec. 7035; and S.Con.Res. 83 (109th Cong.), as adopted
    by the Senate, sec. 402. For general information on rules regarding emergency designations,
    see CRS Report RS21035, Emergency Spending: Statutory and Congressional Rules
    the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations”
    (contingency operations).
    In practice, House emergency and contingency operations designations may be
    included in the committee-reported bills and conference reports, but not in floor
    amendments. Under House precedents, these designations are considered legislation
    on an appropriations bill, which are prohibited.64 The House, sometimes, adopts a
    special rule waiving this point of order against emergency and contingency
    operations designations in the reported bills and conference reports, but not such
    provisions in floor amendments.
    By contrast, under Senate precedents such designations are not considered
    legislation on an appropriations bill. Emergency designations may be included in
    Senate floor amendments as well as committee amendments, reported bills, amended
    bills, and conference reports.
    Emergency designations for non-defense spending are, however, subject to
    another point of order.65 If this point of order is raised and sustained, the emergency
    designation is stricken and the funding is then subject to the points of order enforcing
    the spending ceilings. In order to waive this point of order, a three-fifths vote of all
    Senators is required, thereby requiring super-majority support. A vote to appeal the
    presiding officer’s ruling also requires three-fifths vote of all Senators.
    For FY2007, both chambers have established different ceilings on designated funding
    exemptions. Under House procedures, there is a $6.450 billion limit on non defense
    discretionary spending, any additional non-defense discretionary designated
    funds may only be exempt if approved generally by the House Committee on the
    Budget.66 There is no House ceiling on defense spending, “contingency operations.”
    The Senate, by contrast, set a FY2007 total limit of $86.3 billion on all funds
    designated as an emergency, both defense and non-defense spending Specifically, special budgetary designations pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the
    budget are considered “legislation on an appropriations bill.” Special budgetary
    designations include provisions (1) designating funds as “making appropriations for
    contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism and other
    unanticipated defense-related operations” under sec. 402 of H.Con.Res 376 (109th Cong.);
    and (2) designating funds as “an emergency requirement” under title v of the same
    resolution. For more information on legislation on an appropriations bill, see “Relationship
    Between Authorization and Appropriation Measures”
    Congress has established an authorization-appropriation process that provides
    for two separate types of measures — authorization measures and appropriation
    measures. These bills perform different functions and are to be considered in
    sequence. First, the authorization measure is considered and then the appropriation
    measure.
    Authorization acts establish, continue, or modify agencies or programs. For
    example, an authorization act may establish or modify programs within the
    Department of Defense. The authorization act also authorizes subsequent
    appropriations for specific agencies and programs, frequently setting spending
    ceilings for them. These authorization of appropriations provisions may be
    permanent, annual, or multi-year authorizations. Annual and multi-year provisions
    require re-authorizations when they expire. Congress is not required to provide
    appropriations for an authorized discretionary spending program.
    Authorization measures are under the jurisdiction of legislative committees such
    as the House Committees on Agriculture and Homeland Security, or the Senate
    Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary. Most congressional committees
    are legislative committees.68 The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
    however, are not. Appropriations measures provide new budget authority for the
    program, activity, or agency previously authorized.
    The authorization-appropriation process enforces separation of these functions
    into different measures by separating committee jurisdiction over authorization and
    appropriations bills and with points of order prohibiting certain provisions in
    appropriations measures.69 The House and Senate prohibit, in varying degrees,
    language in appropriations bills providing unauthorized appropriations or legislation
    on an appropriations bill (or legislation). An unauthorized appropriation is new
    budget authority in an appropriations measure (amendment or conference report) for
    agencies or programs whose authorization has expired or was never authorized, or
    whose budget authority exceeds the ceiling authorized. Legislation refers to language
    in appropriations measures that change existing law, such as establishing new law,
    or amending or repealing current law. Legislation is under the jurisdiction of the
    authorizing committees (also called legislative committees).
    House rules prohibit unauthorized appropriations and legislation in regular
    appropriations bills and supplemental appropriations measures, which provide funds
    for more than one purpose or agency (referred to in the House as general
    appropriations bills). However, House rules do not prohibit such provisions in The House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee have jurisdiction
    over some authorization measures, all revenue measures, and some mandatory spending
    measures.
    69 House Rule XXI, clause 2; House Rule XXII, clause 5; and Senate Rule XVI. House rules
    also prohibit appropriations in authorization measures, amendments, or conference reports
    (Rule XXI, clause 4 and House Rule XXII, clause 5).
    continuing resolutions. The House prohibition applies to bills reported by the House
    Appropriations Committee, amendments, and conference reports. The House may
    adopt a special rule waiving this rule prior to floor consideration of the
    appropriations bill or conference report.70 The point of order applies to the text of the
    bills, amendments, and conference reports; not the committee report or the joint
    explanatory statement.
    In the Senate, unauthorized appropriations and legislation are treated differently.
    The Senate rule regarding such language applies to regular bills, supplementals which
    provide funds for more than one purpose or agency, and continuing resolutions
    (referred to in the Senate as general appropriations bills).
    This Senate rule applies only to amendments to general appropriations bills,
    such as, those
    ! introduced on the Senate floor;
    ! reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Housepassed
    measure; or
    ! proposed as a substitute for the House-passed text.
    The rule does not apply to provisions in Senate bills or conference reports.71 For
    example, this rule did not apply to provisions in S. 1005, the FY1998 Defense
    appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. But it did
    apply to provisions in H.R. 2107, the FY1998 Interior bill, as reported by the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, since this version of the bill consisted of amendments to
    the House-passed bill.72 Recently, the Senate has adopted procedures, on a bill-bybill
    basis, that make these points of order applicable to the provisions of Senate bills.
    The Senate rule is less restrictive than the House on unauthorized
    appropriations. For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee may report
    committee amendments containing unauthorized appropriations. An appropriation
    is considered authorized if the Senate previously passes the authorization bill during
    the same session of Congress. In contrast, in the House, the authorization must be
    in law.
    Although the Senate rule generally prohibits unauthorized appropriations in noncommittee
    amendments, Senators rarely raise this point of order because of
    exceptions to the rule.
    The special rule may provide a waiver for specified provisions or all provisions in the bill
    that are subject to the point of order. The special rule may also provide a waiver for specific
    amendments. Special rules typically waive points of order against all provisions in all
    conference reports on general appropriations measures.
    71 The rule also does not apply to language in committee reports or joint explanatory
    statements.
    72 The Senate rule reflects Senate practices at the time the rule was established. The Senate
    Appropriations Committee traditionally reported numerous amendments to the Housepassed
    appropriations bill, instead of reporting an original Senate bill. Therefore, the rule’s
    prohibition only applies to amendments, both committee and floor amendments.
    The Senate rule prohibits legislation in both Senate Appropriations Committee
    amendments and non-committee amendments.73 It also prohibits non-germane
    amendments.
    The division between an authorization and an appropriation is limited to
    congressional consideration of appropriations measures. If unauthorized
    appropriations or legislation remain in a measure as enacted, either because no one
    raised a point of order or the House or Senate waived the rules, the provision will
    have the force of law. Again, enacted unauthorized appropriations are generally
    available for obligation or expenditure.
    Rescissions cancel previously enacted budget authority. To continue the earlier
    example, after Congress enacted the $1.6 billion to construct the submarine, it could
    enact legislation canceling the budget authority prior to its obligation. Rescissions
    are an expression of changed or differing priorities. They may also be used to offset
    increases in budget authority for other activities.
    The President may recommend rescissions to Congress, but it is up to Congress
    to act on them. Under Title X of the Congressional Budget Act,74 Congress must
    enact a bill approving the President’s rescissions within 45 days of continuous
    session of Congress or the budget authority must be spent.
    In practice, this usually means that funds proposed for rescission not approved
    by Congress must be made available for obligation after about 60 calendar days,
    although the period can extend to 75 days or longer.75
    In response to the President’s recommendation, Congress may decide not to
    approve the amount specified by the President, approve the total amount, or approve
    a different amount. In 2005, the President requested a rescission of $106 million
    from the Department of Defense (DOD), Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
    account and $48.6 million from DOD, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
    Army account. Congress provided a rescission of $80 million from the first account
    in the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
    Under Senate precedents, an amendment containing legislation may be considered if it is
    germane to language in the House-passed appropriations bill. That is, if the House opens
    the door by including a legislative provision in an appropriations bill, the Senate has an
    “inherent right” to amend it. However, if the Senate considers an original Senate bill, rather
    than the House-passed bill with amendments, there is no House language to which the
    legislative provision could be germane. Therefore, the defense of germaneness is not
    available.
    74 Title X is referred to as the Impoundment Control Act
    Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006.76 The act did
    not provide a rescission from the second account.
    Congress may also initiate rescissions. In the above act, Congress also initiated
    a rescission of $10 million from the Department of State, Diplomatic and Consular
    Programs account.
    As budget authority providing the funding must be enacted into law, so, too, a
    rescission canceling the budget authority must be enacted into law. Rescissions can
    be included in either separate rescission measures or any of the three types of
    appropriations measures.

    1. Whenever a bill or joint resolution shall be offered, its introduction shall, if objected to, be postponed for one day.
    2. Every bill and joint resolution shall receive three readings previous to its passage which readings on demand of any Senator shall be on three different legislative days, and the Presiding Officer shall give notice at each reading whether it be the first, second, or third: Provided,That each reading may be by title only, unless the Senate in any case shall otherwise order.
    3. No bill or joint resolution shall be committed or amended until it shall have been twice read, after which it may be referred to a committee; bills and joint resolutions introduced on leave, and bills and joint resolutions from the House of Representatives, shall be read once, and may be read twice, if not objected to, on the same day for reference, but shall not be considered on that day nor debated, except for reference, unless by unanimous consent.
    4. Every bill and joint resolution reported from a committee, not having previously been read, shall be read once, and twice, if not objected to, on the same day, and placed on the Calendar in the order in which the same may be reported; and every bill and joint resolution introduced on leave, and every bill and joint resolution of the House of Representatives which shall have received a first and second reading without being referred to a committee, shall, if objection be made to further proceeding thereon, be placed on the Calendar.
    5. All bills, amendments, and joint resolutions shall be examined under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate before they go out of the possession of the Senate, and all bills and joint resolutions which shall have passed both Houses shall be examined under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate, to see that the same are correctly enrolled, and, when signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall forthwith present the same, when they shall have originated in the Senate, to the President of the United States and report the fact and date of such presentation to the Senate.
    6. All other resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, if not referred, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct. When objection is heard to the immediate consideration of a resolution or motion when it is submitted, it shall be placed on the Calendar under the heading of “Resolutions and Motions over, under the Rule,” to be laid before the Senate on the next legislative day when there is no further morning business but before the close of morning business and before the termination of the morning hour.
    7. When a bill or joint resolution shall have been ordered to be read a third time, it shall not be in order to propose amendments, unless by unanimous consent, but it shall be in order at any time before the passage of any bill or resolution to move its commitment; and when the bill or resolution shall again be reported from the committee it shall be placed on the Calendar.
    8. When a bill or resolution is accompanied by a preamble, the question shall first be put on the bill or resolution and then on the preamble, which may be withdrawn by a mover before an amendment of the same, or ordering of the yeas and nays; or it may be laid on the table without prejudice to the bill or resolution, and shall be a final disposition of such preamble.
    9. Whenever a private bill, except a bill for a pension, is under consideration, it shall be in order to move the adoption of a resolution to refer the bill to the Chief Commissioner of the Court of Claims for a report in conformity with section 2509 of title 28, United States Code.
    10. No private bill or resolution (including socalled omnibus claims or pension bills), and no amendment to any bill or resolution, authorizing or directing (1) the payment of money for property damages, personal injuries, or death, for which a claim may be filed under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, or for a pension (other than to carry out a provision of law or treaty stipulation); (2) the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream; or (3) the correction of a military or naval record, shall be received or considered.
    1. (a) When a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification, it shall be read a first time; and no motion in respect to it shall be in order, except to refer it to a committee, to print it in confidence for the use of the Senate, or to remove the injunction of secrecy.
    (b) When a treaty is reported from a committee with or without amendment, it shall, unless the Senate unanimously otherwise directs, lie over one day for consideration; after which it may be read a second time, after which amendments may be proposed. At any stage of such proceedings the Senate may remove the injunction of secrecy from the treaty.
    © The decisions thus made shall be reduced to the form of a resolution of ratification, with or without amendments, as the case may be, which shall be proposed on a subsequent day, unless, by unanimous consent, the Senate determine otherwise, at which stage no amendment to the treaty shall be received unless by unanimous consent; but the resolution of ratification when pending shall be open to amendment in the form of reservations, declarations, statements, or understandings.
    (d) On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of twothirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative; but all other motions and questions upon a treaty shall be decided by a majority vote, except a motion to postpone indefinitely, which shall be decided by a vote of twothirds.
    2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon
    1. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendments shall be received to any general appropriation bill the effect of which will be to increase an appropriation already contained in the bill, or to add a new item of appropriation, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law, or treaty stipulation, or act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session; or unless the same be moved by direction of the Committee on Appropriations or of a committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction of the subject matter, or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law.
    2. The Committee on Appropriations shall not report an appropriation bill containing amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation or any restriction on the expenditure of the funds appropriated which proposes a limitation not authorized by law if such restriction is to take effect or cease to be effective upon the happening of a contingency, and if an appropriation bill is reported to the Senate containing amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation or any such restriction, a point of order may be made against the bill, and if the point is sustained, the bill shall be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations.
    3. All amendments to general appropriation bills moved by direction of a committee having legislative jurisdiction of the subject matter proposing to increase an appropriation already contained in the bill, or to add new items of appropriation, shall, at least one day before they are considered, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and when actually proposed to the bill no amendment proposing to increase the amount stated in such amendment shall be received on a point of order made by any Senator.
    4. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment offered by any other Senator which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill be received; nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received which does not directly relate thereto; nor shall any restriction on the expenditure of the funds appropriated which proposes a limitation not authorized by law be received if such restriction is to take effect or cease to be effective upon the happening of a contingency; and all questions of relevancy of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate; and any such amendment or restriction to a general appropriation bill may be laid on the table without prejudice to the bill.
    5. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment, the object of which is to provide for a private claim, shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be to carry out the provisions of an existing law or a treaty stipulation, which shall be cited on the face of the amendment.
    6. When a point of order is made against any restriction on the expenditure of funds appropriated in a general appropriation bill on the ground that the restriction violates this rule, the rule shall be construed strictly and, in case of doubt, in favor of the point of order.
    7. Every report on general appropriation bills filed by the Committee on Appropriations shall identify with particularity each recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.
    8. On a point of order made by any Senator, no general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations for public works on which work has commenced.
    1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order
    1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
    (b) At the conclusion of the morning hour at the beginning of a new legislative day or after the unfinished business or any pending business has first been laid before the Senate on any calendar day, and until after the duration of three hours of actual session after such business is laid down except as determined to the contrary by unanimous consent or on motion without debate, all debate shall be germane and confined to the specific question then pending before the Senate.
    2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
    3. No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union.
    4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
    5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate.
    6. Whenever confusion arises in the Chamber or the galleries, or demonstrations of approval or disapproval are indulged in by the occupants of the galleries, it shall be the duty of the Chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a Senator.
    7. No Senator shall introduce to or bring to the attention of the Senate during its sessions any occupant in the galleries of the Senate. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor may the Presiding Officer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.
    8. Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Officer who shall thereupon make the necessary arrangements.
    1. A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall not
    receive any compensation, nor shall he permit any compensation
    to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the
    receipt or accrual of which would occur by virtue of influence
    improperly exerted from his position as a Member, officer, or
    employee.
    2. No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any
    outside business or professional activity or employment for
    compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the
    conscientious performance of official duties.
    3. No officer or employee shall engage in any outside
    business or professional activity or employment for
    compensation unless he has reported in writing when such
    activity or employment commences and on May 15 of each year
    thereafter so long as such activity or employment continues,
    the nature of such activity or employment to his supervisor.
    The supervisor shall then, in the discharge of his duties, take
    such action as he considers necessary for the avoidance of
    conflict of interest or interference with duties to the Senate.
    4. No Member, officer, or employee shall knowingly use his
    official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage
    of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only
    his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his
    immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited
    class of persons or enterprises, when he, or his immediate
    family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the
    affected class.
    5. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall (1)
    affiliate with a firm, partnership, association, or corporation
    for the purpose of providing professional services for
    compensation; (2) permit that individual’s name to be used by
    such a firm, partnership, association or corporation; or (3)
    practice a profession for compensation to any extent during
    regular office hours of the Senate office in which employed.
    For the purposes of this paragraph, ``professional services’’
    shall include but not be limited to those which involve a
    fiduciary relationship.
    (b) A Member or an officer or employee whose rate of basic
    pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the annual rate
    of basic pay in effect for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule
    shall not—
    (1) receive compensation for affiliating with or
    being employed by a firm, partnership, association,
    corporation, or other entity which provides
    professional services involving a fiduciary
    relationship;
    (2) permit that Member’s, officer’s, or employee’s
    name to be used by any such firm, partnership,
    association, corporation, or other entity;
    (3) receive compensation for practicing a profession
    which involves a fiduciary relationship; or
    (4) receive compensation for teaching, without the
    prior notification and approval of the Select\68\
    Committee on Ethics.

    6. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall
    serve as an officer or member of the board of any publicly held
    or publicly regulated corporation, financial institution, or
    business entity. The preceding sentence shall not apply to
    service of a Member, officer, or employee as—

    (1) an officer or member of the board of an
    organization which is exempt from taxation under
    section 501© of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, if
    such service is performed without compensation;

    (2) an officer or member of the board of an
    institution or organization which is principally
    available to Members, officers, or employees of the
    Senate, or their families, if such service is performed
    without compensation; or

    (3) a member of the board of a corporation,
    institution, or other business entity, if (A) the
    Member, officer, or employee had served continuously as
    a member of the board thereof for at least two years
    prior to his election or appointment as a Member,
    officer, or employee of the Senate, (B) the amount of
    time required to perform such service is minimal, and
    © the Member, officer, or employee is not a member
    of, or a member of the staff of any Senate committee
    which has legislative jurisdiction over any agency of
    the Government charged with regulating the activities
    of the corporation, institution, or other business
    entity.

    (b) A Member or an officer or employee whose rate of basic
    pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the annual rate
    of basic pay in effect for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule
    shall not serve for compensation as an officer or member of the
    board of any association, corporation, or other entity.

    7. An employee on the staff of a committee who is
    compensated at a rate in excess of $25,000 per annum and
    employed for more than ninety days in a calendar year shall
    divest himself of any substantial holdings which may be
    directly affected by the actions of the committee for which he
    works, unless the Select Committee, after consultation with the
    employee’s supervisor, grants permission in writing to retain
    such holdings or the employee makes other arrangements
    acceptable to the Select Committee and the employee’s
    supervisor to avoid participation in committee actions where
    there is a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.

    8. If a Member, upon leaving office, becomes a
    registered lobbyist under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying
    Act of 1946 or any successor statute, or is employed or
    retained by such a registered lobbyist or an entity that
    employs or retains a registered lobbyist for the purpose of
    influencing legislation, he shall not lobby Members, officers,
    or employees of the Senate for a period of two years after
    leaving office.

    9. (a) If an employee on the staff of a Member, upon
    leaving that position, becomes a registered lobbyist under the
    Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 or any successor
    statute, or is employed or retained by such a registered
    lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a registered
    lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation, such
    employee may not lobby the Member for whom he worked or that
    Member’s staff for a period of one year after leaving that
    position.

    (b) If an employee on the staff of a committee, upon
    leaving his position, becomes such a registered lobbyist or is
    employed or retained by such a registered lobbyist or an entity
    that employs or retains a registered lobbyist for the purpose
    of influencing legislation, such employee may not lobby the
    members of the committee for which he worked, or the staff of
    that committee, for a period of one year after leaving his
    position.

    © If an officer of the Senate or an employee on the
    staff of a Member or on the staff of a committee whose rate of
    pay is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the rate of pay
    of a Member and employed at such rate for more than 60 days in
    a calendar year, upon leaving that position, becomes a
    registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a
    registered lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation,
    such employee may not lobby any Member, officer, or employee of
    the Senate for a period of 1 year after leaving that position.

    10. Paragraphs 8 and 9 shall not apply to contacts with
    the staff of the Secretary of the Senate regarding compliance
    with the lobbying disclosure requirements of the Lobbying
    Disclosure Act of 1995.

    11. (a) If a Member’s spouse or immediate family member is
    a registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist or an entity that hires or retains a
    registered lobbyist for the purpose of influencing legislation,
    the Member shall prohibit all staff employed or supervised by
    that Member (including staff in personal, committee, and
    leadership offices) from having any contact with the Member’s
    spouse or immediate family member that constitutes a lobbying
    contact as defined by section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
    of 1995 by such person.

    (b) Members and employees on the staff of a Member
    (including staff in personal, committee, and leadership
    offices) shall be prohibited from having any contact that
    constitutes a lobbying contact as defined by section 3 of the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by any spouse of a Member who
    is a registered lobbyist, or is employed or retained by such a
    registered lobbyist.

    © The prohibition in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to
    the spouse of a Member who was serving as a registered lobbyist
    at least 1 year prior to the most recent election of that
    Member to office or at least 1 year prior to his or her
    marriage to that Member.

    12. (a) Except as provided by subparagraph (b), any
    employee of the Senate who is required to file a report
    pursuant to rule XXXIV shall refrain from participating
    personally and substantially as an employee of the Senate in
    any contact with any agency of the executive or judicial branch
    of Government with respect to non-legislative matters affecting
    any non-governmental person in which the employee has a
    significant financial interest.

    (b) Subparagraph (a) shall not apply if an employee first
    advises his supervising authority of his significant financial
    interest and obtains from his employing authority a written
    waiver stating that the participation of the employee is
    necessary. A copy of each such waiver shall be filed with the
    Select Committee.

    13. For purposes of this rule—

    (a) ``employee of the Senate’’ includes an employee
    or individual described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4© of
    rule XLI;

    (b) an individual who is an employee on the staff of
    a subcommittee of a committee shall be treated as an
    employee on the staff of such committee; and

    © the term ``lobbying’’ means any oral or written
    communication to influence the content or disposition
    of any issue before Congress, including any pending or
    future bill, resolution, treaty, nomination, hearing,
    report, or investigation; but does not include—

    (1) a communication (i) made in the form of
    testimony given before a committee or office of
    the Congress, or (ii) submitted for inclusion
    in the public record, public docket, or public
    file of a hearing; or

    (2) a communication by an individual, acting
    solely on his own behalf, for redress of
    personal grievances, or to express his personal
    opinion.

    14. (a) A Member shall not negotiate or have any
    arrangement concerning prospective private employment until
    after his or her successor has been elected, unless such Member
    files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate, for
    public disclosure, regarding such negotiations or arrangements
    not later than 3 business days after the commencement of such
    negotiation or arrangement, including the name of the private
    entity or entities involved in such negotiations or
    arrangements, and the date such negotiations or arrangements
    commenced.

    (b) A Member shall not negotiate or have any arrangement
    concerning prospective employment for a job involving lobbying
    activities as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
    until after his or her successor has been elected.

    ©(1) An employee of the Senate earning in excess of 75
    percent of the salary paid to a Senator shall notify the Select
    Committee on Ethics that he or she is negotiating or has any
    arrangement concerning prospective private employment.

    (2) The notification under this subparagraph shall be made
    not later than 3 business days after the commencement of such
    negotiation or arrangement.

    (3) An employee to whom this subparagraph applies shall—

    (A) recuse himself or herself from—

    (i) any contact or communication with the
    prospective employer on issues of legislative
    interest to the prospective employer; and

    (ii) any legislative matter in which there is
    a conflict of interest or an appearance of a
    conflict for that employee under this
    subparagraph; and

    (B) notify the Select Committee on Ethics of such
    recusal.

    15. For purposes of this rule—

    (a) a Senator or the Vice President is the supervisor
    of his administrative, clerical, or other assistants;

    (b) a Senator who is the chairman of a committee is
    the supervisor of the professional, clerical, or other
    assistants to the committee except that minority staff
    members shall be under the supervision of the ranking
    minority Senator on the committee;

    © a Senator who is a chairman of a subcommittee
    which has its own staff and financial authorization is
    the supervisor of the professional, clerical, or other
    assistants to the subcommittee except that minority
    staff members shall be under the supervision of the
    ranking minority Senator on the subcommittee;

    (d) the President pro tempore is the supervisor of
    the Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms and
    Doorkeeper, the Chaplain, the Legislative Counsel, and
    the employees of the Office of the Legislative Counsel;

    (e) the Secretary of the Senate is the supervisor of
    the employees of his office;

    (f) the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is the
    supervisor of the employees of his office;

    (g) the Majority and Minority Leaders and the
    Majority and Minority Whips are the supervisors of the
    research, clerical, or other assistants assigned to
    their respective offices;

    (h) the Majority Leader is the supervisor of the
    Secretary for the Majority and the Secretary for the
    Majority is the supervisor of the employees of his
    office; and

    (i) the Minority Leader is the supervisor of the
    Secretary for the Minority and the Secretary for the
    Minority is the supervisor of the employees of his
    office.
    1. A Senator or an individual who is a candidate for nomination for election, or election, to the Senate may not use the frank for any mass mailing (as defined in section 3210(a)(6)(E)2 of title 39, United States Code) if such mass mailing is mailed at or delivered to any postal facility less than sixty days immediately before the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which the Senator is a candidate for public office or the individual is a candidate for Senator, unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.
    2. A Senator shall use only official funds of the Senate, including his official Senate allowances, to purchase paper, to print, or to prepare any mass mailing material which is to be sent out under the frank.
    3. (a) When a Senator disseminates information under the frank by a mass mailing (as defined in section 3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States Code), the Senator shall register quarterly with the Secretary of the Senate such mass mailings. Such registration shall be made by filing with the Secretary a copy of the matter mailed and providing, on a form supplied by the Secretary, a description of the group or groups of persons to whom the mass mailing was mailed.
    (b) The Secretary of the Senate shall promptly make available for public inspection and copying a copy of the mail matter registered, and a description of the group or groups of persons to whom the mass mailing was mailed.
    4. Nothing in this rule shall apply to any mailing under the frank which is (a) in direct response to inquiries or requests from persons to whom the matter is mailed; (b) addressed to colleagues in Congress or to government officials (whether Federal, State, or local); or © consists entirely of news releases to the communications media.
    5. The Senate computer facilities shall not be used (a) to store, maintain, or otherwise process any lists or categories of lists of names and addresses identifying the individuals included in such lists as campaign workers or contributors, as members of a political party, or by any other partisan political designation, (b) to produce computer printouts except as authorized by user guides approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, or © to produce mailing labels for mass mailings, or computer tapes and discs, for use other than in service facilities maintained and operated by the Senate or under contract to the Senate. The Committee on Rules and Administration shall prescribe such regulations not inconsistent with the purposes of this paragraph as it determines necessary to carry out such purposes.
    6. (a) The radio and television studios provided by the Senate or by the House of Representatives may not be used by a Senator or an individual who is a candidate for nomination for election, or election, to the Senate less than sixty days immediately before the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which that Senator is a candidate for public office or that individual is a candidate for Senator, unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.
    (b) This paragraph shall not apply if the facilities are to be used at the request of, and at the expense of, a licensed broadcast organization or an organization exempt from taxation under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
    1. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.
    2. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the sponsor of the bill or joint resolution for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.
    3. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-
    (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report, has been identified through lists, charts, or other means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified; and
    (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before such vote.
    (b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, then the conference report shall be set aside.
    4. (a) If during consideration of a bill or joint resolution, a Senator proposes an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit which was not included in the bill or joint resolution as placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee, in a committee report on such bill or joint resolution, or a committee report of the Senate on a companion measure, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that a list of such items (and the name of any Senator who submitted a request to the Senator for each respective item included in the list) is printed in the Congressional Record.
    (b) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution that includes congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, the committee shall as soon as practicable identify on a publicly accessible congressional website each such item through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified. Availability on the Internet of a committee report that contains the information described in this subparagraph shall satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.
    © To the extent technically feasible, information made available on publicly accessible congressional websites under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be provided in a searchable format.
    5. For the purpose of this rule-
    (a) the term ``congressionally directed spending item’’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
    (b) the term ``limited tax benefit’’ means-
    (1) any revenue provision that-
    (A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
    (B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision;
    © the term ``limited tariff benefit’’ means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities; and
    (d) except as used in subparagraph 8(e), the term ``item`’ when not preceded by ``congressionally directed spending’’ means any provision that is a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit.
    6. (a) A Senator who requests a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, including-
    (1) the name of the Senator;
    (2) in the case of a congressionally directed spending item, the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity;
    (3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, identification of the individual or entities reasonably anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Senator;
    (4) the purpose of such congressionally directed spending item or limited tax or tariff benefit; and
    (5) a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator’s immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9.

  • loida79 05/25/2008 5:57pm

    Wow, those long pastes are too much !

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:01pm
    Link Reply
    + -4

    FRY SCOOTER LIBBY!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:01pm

    This could take until July

    Good Point, thats what I heard, now White House is saying they have enough funds until July? But don’t forget the pentagon would have to lay off some people by JUNE 15- Another thing to keep in Mind President Bush is going on a summit on June 6th-10th (Pope visitalso) So expect the House to work on a bill together so Bush can sign. Hopefully, Our U/E Extension will still be part of it?
    My fear is the numbers for May will be out & you know how the labor board “Finagels” the numbers? So it still can be a rollercoaster as usual.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:10pm

    I see the Libertarian Party getting a lot of votes if they change the bill.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:24pm

    One way or another we are going to see big changes. No one can stop that.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:28pm

    I didn’t mean the bill.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:31pm

    Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty…will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
    No agent can remedy the moral weakness of will of another except by forcing them to be responsible for their own self-interest — i.e. by denying aid. (Hence the sentiment of Benjamin Franklin above that the poor become richer when less provision is made for them.) The agent faced with acknowledging non-contractual duties of commission must judge whether the need of the other is genuine, fraudulent, or incontinent. In case of doubt, of course, one must tend to assume genuine helpless need; but a consistently credulous attitude towards need, or a determination that even incontinent need should be answered with charity and compassion, can only aid and abet incontinence. Such charity and compassion can even become morally culpable if they become the means of perpetuating moral helplessness: and the dependency of the helpless thus promoted can validate the moral superiority and self-righteousness of the agent — i.e. the self-interest of the agent in using the other as a means to moral self-satisfaction and power over others. Thus the agent uses the helpless and wrongs them. It is these issues of competence, incontinence (or negligence), and motivation that result in the complexity of the rule for non-contractual duties of commission. Contracts imply that some balance, in the informed estimation of the contractors (where that is possible), has been struck between the interests pursued by one in behalf of the other (the goods or services rendered), and those pursued or rendered in return. Since a contract is an exchange of goods, it contrasts with non-contractual duties of commission, which call on the agent to act for the good of others without certainty of recompense, or with privileges (rights, powers) of necessity, which compel another to provide certain goods, but with a positive duty on the beneficiary for later recompense. Normally anyone is free to give supererogatory aid and assistance out of charity and compassion — goods for nothing in return — but making this a general obligation, as altruistic moralism does, erases the existence of contracts — an agreement to exchange goods is hardly necessary when one is obliged to give goods anyway, for nothing in return.
    A line therefore must be drawn between goods for others that will only concern us through contractual actions rebounding to our self-interest, and those goods for others that may make demands on us to act out of moral duty for the sake of those others even without expectation of benefit to ourselves. This motivates condition #2 above, that there is an duty where the other is in danger of serious and irreversible harm, the situation where someone would acknowledge their helpless state, perhaps, just by crying, “Help.” Such a “help,” however, cannot always be taken at face value. Some people may be in need of help without being able to acknowledge it; others may ask for or continue asking for help when they actually are not in need of it — their helplessness can become a way of using others and so wronging them rather than being responsible for their own self-interest. That helplessness can be real fraud, a deliberate manipulation of others, or it can arise merely from incontinence, which like negligence is a moral weakness or carelessness of will. This is the problem with Marx’s principle for the utopian society: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”; for according to that principle it is worth the most to each individual to have as little ability and as many needs as possible. Ability is easily concealed — and many abilities are not even revealed except under stress and real need — and needs are easily claimed, with any critical response attacked as heartless and selfish. It is a lot easier to claim need rather than exert oneself to develop and apply abilities.
    No agent can remedy the moral weakness of will of another except by forcing them to be responsible for their own self-interest — i.e. by denying aid. (Hence the sentiment of Benjamin Franklin above that the poor become richer when less provision is made for them.) The agent faced with acknowledging non-contractual duties of commission must judge whether the need of the other is genuine, fraudulent, or incontinent. In case of doubt, of course, one must tend to assume genuine helpless need; but a consistently credulous attitude towards need, or a determination that even incontinent need should be answered with charity and compassion, can only aid and abet incontinence. Such charity and compassion can even become morally culpable if they become the means of perpetuating moral helplessness: and the dependency of the helpless thus promoted can validate the moral superiority and self-righteousness of the agent — i.e. the self-interest of the agent in using the other as a means to moral self-satisfaction and power over others. Thus the agent uses the helpless and wrongs them. It is these issues of competence, incontinence (or negligence), and motivation that result in the complexity of the rule for non-contractual duties of commission.
    An important point that results from all this is the right of personal privacy. The denial of altruistic moralism means that the primary business of life is the pursuit of goods for the self, and these are the goods of private life. Public life and public goods only exist in so far as they ultimately serve the goods of private life. Because different things can appear (non-morally) good to different people — i.e. some people devote their lives to baseball, others to medicine, to art, to charity, etc. — public life cannot provide directly what everyone wants, since that cannot be predicted or anticipated. Instead each is provided the freedom to (innocently) seek what satisfies them. Altruistic moralism, which makes it our duty to provide personal goods to others, erases the distinction between private and public. That opens personal affairs to public scrutiny and also moralizes them: personal choices become subject to public judgment about their worthiness; and since aesthetic variety cannot be certified in such a way, an anaesthetic and anhedonic condemnation will be lodged against anything not regarded as morally worthy. This is all a move well represented in the slogan, “The personal is political,” and it is an important effect, again, of paternalism.
    The same effect renders non-contractual duties of commission a category to be carefully constrained and not needlessly expanded: for judging others incompetent and helpless removes their privacy and, so that need can be properly evaluated, opens all their preferences to examination by the intervening agent. That examination will not be moralistic so long as the intervention is directed to establishing (or reëstablishing) autonomy in the helpless other. Indeed, this now gives us a general rule for non-contractual duties of commission:
    Just as duties of omission are to avoid violating the autonomy of others, non-contractual duties of commission are solely to establish, preserve, or reëstablish that very autonomy, so long as the agent is able to do so and his own autonomy or preëxisting duties are not disproportionately compromised — which is to say that contractual duties of commission, if involving necessities, have priority over non-contractual duties of commission.
    Duties of omission are to respect privacy, while duties of commission, although violating privacy, view this only as a necessary evil which all efforts must directed towards remedying. Moralistic altruism and paternalism militate against respect for privacy or for autonomy — privacy and autonomy are by definition selfishness, willfulness, and anarchy — and so there is no point in trying to break or abridge the relationships of dependency that they establish, or to restore any personal privacy. Such dependency, however, essentially means abject and demoralizing peonage.
    Although the emphasis above has been on the duties of agents towards the needs of others, the other side of the principle is the moral right of needy agents to enforce those duties. If you emerge from the desert on the verge of death from lack of water, you have the right to take water from a well, even if the owner of the well doesn’t want to give the water to you or even sell it at a reasonable price. Indeed, if the owner of the well tries to stop you from taking water by force, you are justified in using force to take the water. On the other hand, if you simply encounter someone in the desert who has some water, but it is not enough water for them to survive if they give you any, you have no right to it and the owner has the right to defend it by force. If they believe it will not be enough for them to survive, but it actually is enough, then they paradoxically have the right to defend by force what you have the right to take. On the other hand, you do owe the owner for the value of the water, and what you owe is some fair value of the water — what the owner would have gotten if you had not needed it out of necessary — and not what the owner might want to ask for it. If you are really on the verge of death, it might seem like a good deal to sell all your possessions or even your freedom for the water. But that would not be just. If the owner cannot be reasonable about the value of the water, some judicial resolution might be necessary.
    These rights based on necessary may be called “powers” or “privileges” of necessity. It is a category of rights that suffers from the same uncertainties and possibly the same abuses as anything that is based on estimations of needs and abilities. It is a category that clearly justifies the classic case of “stealing to feed starving children,” but in specific cases whether the stealing is really necessary to feed the children is often a good question. The principle is susceptible to false generalizations: since everyone needs employment, many are tempted to posit a “right to a job” which amounts to a power to compel someone in particular to offer a job. Since in a large and fluid market jobs could be obtained from many people, and jobs could even be obtained by self-employment, it is not clear how the “right to a job” could be reasonably enforced on the basis of the real ability and opportunities of any specific person. The “right to job” also easily becomes the “right to the kind of job, with the kind of pay, I would like.” Freely handing out legal powers in that direction ends up damaging the employment of others in often hidden ways. If jobs and wages for some are bought at the cost of a crippled labor market that leaves 10% or 20% of the labor force unemployed (as during the Great Depression, when high wages were promoted by both Hoover and Roosevelt administrations — or as in Western Europe today, where legally manipulated high wages translate into an average of 11% unemployment), then a very peculiar, self-defeating trade-off has been effected. Privileges of necessity thus properly must refer to immediate necessities, not generalizations about what people “need” in general when there are multiple ways in which those “needs” can be fulfilled.
    WOODY ALLEN: That’s quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn’t it?
    GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.
    WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?
    GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.
    WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?
    GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.
    WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?
    GIRL IN MUSEUM: [leaves silently]
    If one had listened to a [BBC] World Service broadcast on her radio one day which had simply taken her breath away. It was about philosophers who called themselves existentialists and who, as far as Mma Ramotswe could ascertain, lived in France. These French people said that you should live in a way which made you feel real, and that the real thing to do was the right thing too. Mma Ramotswe had listened in astonishment. You did not have to go to France to meet existentialists, she reflected; there were many existentialists right here in Botswana. Note Mokoti, for example. She had been married to an existentialist herself, without even knowing it. Note, that selfish man who never once put himself out for another — not even for his wife — would have approved of existentialists, and they of him. It was very existentialist, perhaps, to go out to bars every night while your pregnant wife stayed at home, and even more existentialist to go off with girls — young existentialist girls — you met in bars. It was a good life being an existentialist, although not too good for all the other, nonexistentialist people around one. Alexander McCall Smith, Morality for Beautiful Girls, Volume 3 of “The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency” series [Anchor Books, 2001, p.78]
    In the 1988 movie Beetlejuice, we meet a young couple (Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin) who have met an untimely death and find themselves involuntarily haunting their own home. They eventually discover that they have access to a kind of administrative center for the afterlife. As they enter the waiting room for the center, through a one-way turnstyle, we notice that a sign over the door says: This is an allusion to another story about the afterlife, a play by Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) called, indeed, No Exit (1944). The allusion is apt since neither version of the afterlife is very appealing. In Sartre’s play, a man and two women find themselves trapped in a hotel room. They have been escorted into the room without knowing how or why they are even in the hotel or what they are supposed to be doing in the room together. Once they are in the room, however, they discover that they cannot get out and that all their efforts to summon help are fruitless. They also discover a rather unpleasant dynamic among themselves. The man is attracted to one of the women, but she happens to be a lesbian and is only attracted to the other woman. The other woman, however, is not a lesbian and is rather attracted to the man — who, of course, does not find her attractive. Soon they realize that they have died and that this is the afterlife, the wrong kind of afterlife. They are in hell, and the lesson of the play is nicely summed up as, “Hell is other people.” Now why is it that “hell is other people”? Well, Jean Paul Sartre was an Existentialist, this is an Existentialist play, and hell being other people is a consequence of Existentialist principles, as we shall see. Existentialism proper is a movement of the 1940’s and 1950’s, literary and artistic as well as philosophical, with Sartre himself as probably the most famous representative. Sartre is also a convenient representative because for a time he actually acknowledged being an Existentialist and offered a definition for the word. It was unusual for Existentialists to identify themselves as such, much less define what it was all about, so Sartre is a convenient place to begin. What Sartre did was to contrast a divine viewpoint on the world and on human nature with a human viewpoint where there is no divine element. Thus, when God thought about creating the world, he conceived it first — he had in mind what the world was going to be and what human nature was going to be. These were the “essences” of the world and of humanity, the things that will make them what they are. Then God created everything and gave existence to the essences. Thus, to God, “essence precedes existence.” Now, Sartre did not believe in God, so there was no place for the essence of humanity to be before human existence. To us, existence comes first. The essence comes later. Indeed, the essence is whatever we decide it is going to be. So, from our point of view things are just the opposite of what they would be for people who believed in God. Now it is “existence precedes essence.” Hence, “Existentialism.” The most important thing there for Sartre is not so much the distinction between essence and existence but the absence of God. For Existentialists like Sartre, the absence of God has a much larger significance than the metaphysics of creation: Without God there is no purpose, no value, and no meaning in the world. That is the foundational proposition for Existentialism. A world without purpose, value, or meaning is literally senseless, worthless, meaningless, empty, and hopeless. It is, to use a favorite Existentialist term, be without value and meaning is also to be without standards for behavior. A favorite quote in that respect is from (1821-1881), a novelist who himself was a Christian but who has characters that often display what later will seem to be Existentialist attitudes and ideas. One of those characters (in The Brothers Karamazov, 1879-1880) says (in effect), “Without God, all is permitted.” Indeed, if the loss of God means the loss of all meaning and value, then actions are without meaning or value either, and one cannot say that it matters whether actions are “right” or “wrong,” since those words, or the corresponding actions, don’t mean anything more than anything else. Dostoevsky, indeed, may be counted as himself a theistic Existentialist, as discussed below, in the tradition of Orthodox Russian mysticism deriving from. Now, when Existentialism was popular, it struck many people as liberating and enjoyable to think of the world as absurd and behavior without limitations. But the real value of Existentialism as a philosophical thought experiment was to understand the true consequences of such a world. It would be a nightmare. An absurd world, and everything else in it, is actually empty and pointless. There is no reason to do anything, even to continue living. Thus, in Woody Allen’s 1972 movie Play It Again Sam, in one scene he is trying to pick up a girl in a museum and asks her about the dark abstract painting that she is looking at. She answers with an Existentialist catalogue - “void,” “emptiness,” “horror,” etc. When he then asks her out, she answers, “I am committing suicide.” That, indeed, would seem to be the obvious response to such a world. The starkness and hopelessness of this problem is portrayed in an essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942), by another great French Existentialist, Albert Camus (1913-1960). In Greek mythology, Sisyphus, who had once deceived the gods and cheated death, was condemned for eternity to roll a stone up a hill. Every time he was about to complete his task, the stone would roll free back down to the bottom of the hill. Sisyphus would then have to start over again, even though the same thing would just happen again. Thus, the punishment of Sisyphus is a punishment just because it is an endless exercise in futility. Sisyphus is stuck in an eternally pointless task. Now, if the world and everything in it are also pointless, the lesson is that the task of Sisyphus is identical to every thing that we will ever be doing in life. We are no different from Sisyphus; and if his punishment makes the afterlife a hell for him, we are already living in that hell. Presumably, Sisyphus is unable to escape his condition through suicide. So if we can, why not? Arguably, there is no reason why not. But suicide is not the typical Existentialist answer. What can Sisyphus do to make his life endurable? Well, he can just decide that it is meaningful. The value and purpose that objectively don’t exist in the world can be restored by an act of will. Again, this is what has struck people as liberating about Existentialism. To live one’s life, one must exercise the freedom to create a life. Just going along with conventional values and forgetting about the absurdity of the world is not authentic. Authenticity is to exercise one’s free will and to choose the activities and goals that will be meaningful for one’s self. With this approach, even Sisyphus can be engaged and satisfied with what he is doing. Now we can answer the question why “hell is other people.” If we live our lives just because of the completely free and autonomous decisions that we make, this creates nothing that is common with others. If we adopt something that comes from someone else, which could give us a common basis to make a connection with them, this is inauthentic. If it just happens, by chance, that our own decisions produce something that matches those of someone else, well then we have a connection, but it is likely to be volatile. As we make new decisions, the probability of our connection with others continuing is going to decline. We are isolated by our own autonomy. The values and decision of others, whether authentic or inauthentic, will be foreign and irritating. This sense of estrangement from others is found in another classic of Existentialism, the novel The Stranger (1942), by Camus. Like many of Camus’ stories, this one is set in Algeria. It is about a fellow whose mother dies but who can’t stand sitting up at her wake. He leaves, and offends the community by his evident disrespect. Later, he kills a local Arab. This is not something that the French colonial judicial system would ordinarily take very seriously, but local French opinion is so unsympathetic with our “stranger,” just because he left his mother’s wake, that he is condemned for the killing of the Arab. The absurdity of all this is the point of the story. An Existentialist is always a stranger to others and is certainly going to have no patience with conventions like wakes for the dead or, for that matter, laws about murder. The isolation produced by Existentialist value decisions also explains why few Existentialists are self-identified as such. Calling someone an “Existentialist” imposes an essence on them, telling them what they are. This violates their absolute autonomy and freedom and makes it sound like they actually have something important in common with some other people, other Existentialists. This is intolerable. Sartre himself felt the moral loss involved in all this. Traditional ideas about moral responsibility disappeared when there was nothing meaningful to be responsible about. Sartre consequently tried to compensate for this by introducing a new, strengthened sense of responsibility. His view was that one is “responsible” for all the consequences of one’s action, whether it is possible to know about them or not. He illustrated this in a short story about the Spanish Civil War. A young Republican partisan is captured by the Fascists. He is told that he will be executed unless he betrays some other Republicans who are considered more important. Not knowing, in fact, where they are, he makes up a story that they are hiding in a cemetery on the edge of town. He is then put in a cell. Later, the Fascists return and release him. What happened? Well, it turned out, just by chance, that the Republicans he pretended to betray actually were hiding in the cemetery, and were captured. So it’s his fault. Now, what is the point of this story? The man is, after a fashion, “responsible” for the capture, and probably execution, of the other Republicans; but the problem with this notion of responsibility is that one cannot govern or alter one’s behavior on the basis of things that one cannot know about. You may be “responsible” for all the consequences of your actions, but if you don’t know what they all are, then it really doesn’t make any difference. This is why traditional morality and law have the category of “negligence,” that one is responsible for things that one could know about but didn’t bother to find out. Things that one cannot know about cannot impose any obligation. The lesson of the story might be that one should never lie, or that even if it is OK to lie to the wicked, one should not make up stories that might be true and might make something bad happen. This, however, makes it sound like Sartre is looking for general moral principles, and that hardly can be the case. “Never lie” would be just the kind of rule that Existentialists are rebelling against, and Sartre certainly wouldn’t like “never lie to Fascists.” And once we start worrying about what “might” be true or what “might” happen, things are much too vague and problematic to have any clear guidance.
    More important is what Sartre’s new sense of “responsibility” leaves out. It leaves out, indeed, the original meaning of “responsibility,” which was “accountability.” It doesn’t really matter that you cannot alter your behavior on the basis of consequences that you cannot know, because you are not accountable for your behavior anyway. The man in the story is not going to be brought to trial before either God or man, much less punished. Being “responsible” for the deaths of the other Republicans just means he will feel bad about what he has made happen. That’s it. This is just a version of what the ordinary meaning of “responsible” has come to be, namely “conscientious.” A responsible person is a conscientious person, which means someone who is trying to do the right thing. Now, in Existentialism there is no “right” thing, so what can “conscientious” possibily mean? It just means that one meant to do something and accepts it. One accepts and acknowledges the consequences of one’s action, and “accepts responsibility,” because one really intended to do the action. The opposite, not accepting one’s own actions or just doing something because it is expected, is “bad faith,” the only real sin in Existentialism. But this just means that any action is OK, as long as one “accepts” it, not that one should be called to account or punished for it because, after all, “all is permitted.”
    This morally empty meaning of responsibility has entered deep into popular art and public discourse. A humorous example of it is in the 1978 movie The Big Fix, with Richard Dreyfuss, Susan Anspach, John Lithgow, Bonnie Bedelia, and F. Murray Abraham (quite a cast). Dreyfuss is a divorced detective whose ex (Bedelia) has taken up with a psychobabble guru, whose training program, BEST, is clearly based on the popular EST therapy of the 1970’s. Every time Dreyfuss has to meet his wife, over their children or his child support payments, this guru pronounces some absurd chestnut from his therapy program. Dreyfuss starts counting them. Meanwhile, murders have occurred (Anspach), and Dreyfuss has to track down the bad guy, whom he thinks is the former campus radical (Abraham) but seems more likely to be the spoiled rich kid (Lithgow). At one point, an attempt is made on his life by mafia hit men from Nevada. He realizes that they might go after his (ex
    ) family also, so he goes to warn his ex-wife to go into hiding with their kids. Unfortunately, she has entered the BEST training seminar with her boyfriend, and, like EST, no one is allowed to enter or leave after it has begun. Dreyfuss bursts in anyway, and is indignantly told by the guru that no one has interrupted his program before. Dreyfuss explains that hit men are possibily trying to murder his ex and their children, to which the guru says, “Then they will just have to take responsibility for that.” At that, Dreyfuss says he has allowed him enough such sayings and punches him out. The implication of the guru’s saying is that the problem with murder is just that you might not “take responsibility” for it. That one might want to avoid murderers, or that they are evil and the action wrongful, is beside the point. “Taking responsibility” is all that counts and ends the matter. Just such uses of the expression we can see more recently in real world affairs. When a car bomb blew up a U.S. Marine billet in Beirut early in the Reagan administration, there was some discussion about who was responsible for the lapse in security. This ended when President Reagan himself said he would “take responsibility” for it. This did not mean he would resign in disgrace. It simply meant that was the end of the matter and everyone should forget about it, which they did. Then years later, when the attempt to “rescue” the children in the compound of the Branch Davidians at Waco ended in their all being suffocated or burned to death, there was also discussion about who was responsible for ordering a raid that was so thoroughly misconceived. Attorney General Janet Reno immediately said that she would “take full responsibility,” and the next day President Clinton offered that he instead would “take responsibility.” Again, what this all meant was that no one would actually be accountable for all this supposed “responsibility.” Neither Reno nor Clinton resigned and, when pressed, they really blamed David Koresh for everything. He was already dead and so could not dispute the blame. A pliant federal judge was then allowed to lower the boom on the few survivors by using a legal trick to impose long jail sentences for the only minor offenses that a jury found them guilty of. “Taking responsibilty” has thus become a way of denying accountability, deflecting true responsibility, and diverting blame to others. Sartre thus can be said to have altered the meaning of “responsible” in just the way that he wanted, which is to create a lot of moral sounding talk while actually eliminating morality. This may be been convenient for Sartre himself, whose own actions may not have been above moral reproach. Although Sartre is commonly said to be have been in the French Resistance during World War II, he staged plays, which had to be submitted to the German censors, in Paris. Camus suspected, consequently, that Sartre was more involved in collaboration than in resistance. Again, although Sartre had a famous relationship with the feminist Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), stories persist that he actually treated her very badly, and that the later years of their relationship consisted of her acting as a procuress for him — then he left his estate to his most recent lover, not to de Beauvoir. Camus was also estranged by Sartre’s lack of concern for the French colonials in Algeria, a third of the population, who stood to lose their homes and livelihood with the coming of Algerian independence. Sartre’s attitude, indeed, owed nothing to Existentialism but to the extremely doctrinaire Marxism that he eventually adopted. Fixing up “responsibility,” evidently, was not good enough. The Existential Void of value had to be filled by Dialectical Materialism. How blind and arrogant this became was evident in Sartre’s remark on hearing of Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” denouncing Stalin in 1956. Sartre said that it should indeed be kept secret because it might discourage the “working class.” The egotism and paternalism of this is typical of leftist intellectuals, but it hardly seems like the kind of thing that would allow the “working class” to “take responsbility” for their own actions. Grafting Marxism onto Existentialism thus simply rendered Sartre’s thought incoherent. Would Existentialism consistently dictate a certain political attitude? One would hardly think so if “all is permitted,” but one need not appeal to logic, only to another conspicuous Existentialist figure, the philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Both Sartre and Heidegger were disciples of the founder of Phenomenology, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), and Sartre himself, somewhat younger, was then influenced by Heidegger. The enduring, embarrassing detail about Heidegger, however, is that he enthusiastically joined the Nazi Party and somehow never got around to explaining just why he had made that mistake or why, for that matter, the Nazi Party was really unworthy of his attention. Indeed, until the end of his life, it always sounded like he was unable to distinguish what it was about the Nazis that was bad, and in fact Naziism followed much more coherently from Heidegger’s thought than Marxism ever did from Sartre’s. That is because, as a true Existentialist, Heidegger did not impose any timeless moral judgments, let alone liberal or democratic ones, on history. Instead, events were supposed to disclose, violently, a new “uncovering” of Being, which would overthrow previous views about justice and order. This is no less than what Hitler was doing. Heidegger was such an enthusiastic Nazi that he stiffed his graduate students who were Jews, refusing to sign their dissertations, and excised the dedication of Being and Time (1927), which had been to the inconveniently Jewish Edmund Husserl. Although one might think this all would have discredited Heidegger in the post-War world, we have already seen how philosophers like Sartre had been busy undermining the forms of traditional moral judgment. Thus, Heidegger’s influence actually grew after the War, even in France, where a celebrated philosopher like Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) said that there is nothing in his thought that was not already in Heidegger. Although no secret, Heidegger’s politics did not begin to embarrass his followers until the 1980’s. The response to this has not been to alter any of the essentials, but to change terminology to conceal the continuity, i.e. Derrida’s “deconstruction” has become, otherwise unaltered, “post-modernism.” Although this now tends to be associated with leftist causes, following Sartre, we should not be surprised to find it hostile to liberal principles and promoting totalitarian rules (e.g. “speech codes” at universities) that would not be unfamiliar to Heidegger. The Marxism of Sartre and the Naziism of Heidegger are sufficient to prove that Existentialism, which already denies any reality to moral principles, can randomly be associated with any sort of politics. Oddly, what it seems less conspicuously to be associated with is liberal and free market politics, which were despised, not just by Sartre and Heidegger, but by most other Existentialist figures and their spiritual descendants. One might think that this is because intellectuals find private life and hard work boring; but then, after the “Myth of Sisyphus,” one might think that any mundane task could be valorized into the most important thing ever. The truth seems to be that Existentialists never really believed that life was as meaningless as the task of Sisyphus. They actually demanded a real world of meaning vast beyond the confines of ordinary life. Thus, Marxism probably appealed to Sartre because of its pretence that it was scientific and about facts, and, as it happens, Heidegger did not really have the classical Existentialist belief in the meaninglessness of the world. The “uncoverings” of Being made for real value, however “terrible,” which means that Adolf Hitler gave real meaning to the world.
    Although the classic forms of Existentialism are characteristic of post-World War II philosophy, literature, and art, we have aleady seen, with Dostoevsky, that atheistic Existentialist-like ideas were anticipated long before then. Dostoevsky, although articulating the ideas, did not believe them; but there were real atheistic Existentialists-before-their-time. The most important was certainly There are at least three ways in which Nietzsche qualifies as a classic Existentialist, all of which we can see in what may have been his magnum opus, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885). The title itself is a bit of a puzzle. “Zarathustra” is a German rendering of Zarathushtra, the name in the language of the Avesta (Avestan), the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism, of the founder of that religion, the Prophet Zoroaster (his name in Greek). Since Zoroaster preached a great cosmic conflict between Good and Evil, this is perplexing: Nietzsche denies the reality of good and evil. But that may be the point. What Zoroaster started, he has now been brought back to end. Sartre’s thought was founded on the non-existence of God as implying the non-existence of all value. Nietzsche expressed precisely this same thing in one of the most famous sayings in the history of philosophy, “God is dead” (a popular bumper-sticker back in the ’60’s said, “‘God is Dead,’ Nietzsche; ‘Nietzsche is dead,’ God”) Since Nietzsche did not believe that there ever was a God, this expresses his view that the effective belief in God was dead, but he has a bit of fun with the metaphor of dying, decay, smell, etc. Unlike Sartre, he is a bit clearer that this is a catastrophe, since it leaves nothing; it leaves, indeed, Nihilism (Latin nihil=“nothing”), which is the condition of not believing anything and having nothing to live for. Life cannot be lived like this and it is intolerable. Thus, if Existentialism in general is more profound than the thoughtless souls who think that an absurd world is fun, Nietzsche is a more profound thinker than the Existentialists who think that we can do without a God. Nietzsche’s replacement for God is the Übermensch. This was originally translated “Superman” since the Latin super means “over,” as does German über. In the 30’s, however, a comic strip was started about “Superman,” who could leap tall buildings in a single bound, etc. This made the philosophers and intellectuals uncomfortable, so later translators of Nietzsche, like the Existentialist Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), started translating Übermensch as “Overman.” This does not, however, have nearly the same punch or ring to it. The Superman, indeed, is supposed to be the next evolutionary step beyond mere man — where we really must say “man,” and not “humanity” or any of the politically correct alternatives, since Nietzsche was not very interested in women and clearly despised the sort of liberal culture where equality for women was coming to hand. When Nietzsche says “man” (Mensch), he means it — someone egotistical, brawling, aggressive, arrogant, insensitive. The Superman is not vulnerable to taming and domesticity. He has broken free of it entirely. The Superman is free because all his own values flow from his own will. This is the second thing that makes Nietzsche an Existentialist-before-his-time. Value is a matter of decision, a matter of will. Because the Superman is free, he takes what he wants and does what he likes. He is authentic. And since what everyone really wants, if they could have their way, is power, the Superman will seize power without remorse, regret, or apology. The Superman, indeed, is like the Sophist Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic: Justice is what he wants, and he will take it. The “slave morality” of altruism and self-denial, which the weak, miserable, crippled, envious, and resentful have formulated into Judeo-Christian ethics, in an attempt to deceive the strong into being weak like themselves, is contemptuously rejected and ignored by the Superman, in whom we find the triumphant “will to power.” It is astonishing that this nasty and contemptuous philosophy has become the darling of the Left, who actually want a society very precisely of the “slave morality” of altruism and self-denial. Perhaps it is because (1) leftist intellectuals know that ordinary people don’t actually read Nietzsche, and (2) that they see everyone else as slaves to them, where the masters’ duty, noblesse oblige, is to arrange everyone else’s lives in the proper way. This is certainly the most common use of Nietzsche, from Adolf Hitler to Garry Wills (cf. his recent authoritarian paean, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, saying that the Constitutional principle of limited government “…is a tradition that belittles America, that asks us to love our country by hating our government”), to imagine one’s self as the Superman, floating above others, dispensing justice, or wrathful punishment, to them. Nietzsche’s own critique of Christianity, that the doctrine of love of others actually translates into resentful hatred of others, applies with full force to his most ardent devotees, whose talk about freedom and creativity translates into constant assaults on the freedom and preferences of others, and deep resentment for those, the industralists and inventors, who have created the modern world and a better life for all. What Nietzsche’s Superman gets is a little more durable than the decisions of Sisyphus, since Nietzsche always saw systems of value, like traditional religions, as persistent and living, endowing things with real value, if only for a time. The Superman thus need not suffer from the nausea and dread that are characteristic of later Existentialists, who are always poised on the edge of oblivion. But this is really less honest than the later fears. Making up values doesn’t make them so, and Nietzsche himself made it possible for this to be felt so intensely later. After the Superman has “transvalued” his own values a few times, he may begin to detect an arbitrariness and emptiness in them. As Nietzsche himself said, you stare into the Void long enough and the Void begins to stare back. Thus, by the time we get to Camus, we get the Stranger, not the Superman. The third point, which is advanced as the greatest teaching of the Zarathustra, does the same job as Sartre’s redefinition of “responsibility.” This is the “Eternal Recurrence.” The doctrine is based on a kind of metaphysical parable, that in an eternity of time, all possible things will have happened, which means that in the present, with an eternity of time behind us, everything has already happened, including what is happening now. Since every point where a time like the present has happened, or will happen, itself also has an eternity of time before it, then what is happening now has already happened an infinite number of times and will happen an infinite number of times again. How seriously Nietzsche takes the actual metaphysics of this is a good question, since it implies a fatalism that is otherwise contrary to Nietzsche’s view of will. But the metaphysics is secondary. Since actions to Nietzsche are no longer good or evil, he feels the same loss of weight as does Sartre and wants some way to make actions seem more serious than they would be for your ordinary Nihilist. With the Eternal Recurrence, actions become weightier because one must be perpared to do them over and over again for eternity (like, indeed, Sisyphus). This still doesn’t, after all, mean that they are right or wrong; it simply means that before you do something, you must determine that you really want to do it. Woody Allen jokes about this in Hannah and Her Sisters 1986, that Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence means that he will have to see the Ice-Capades over and over again. Unfortunately, it is not hard to imagine that the greatest criminals of history, from Jack the Ripper to Adolf Hitler, would be perfectly happy to repeat their crimes endlessly. So, as with Sartre again, Nietzsche’s doctrine does little to make up for the loss of real morality, and the Eternal Recurrence has never been as sexy or popular a doctrine as the Superman or the Will to Power. So far I have been considering atheistic Existentialists, like Sartre and Nietzsche; and the way they formulate their doctrines, it might seem that atheism would be intrinsic to Existentialist ideas. The absence of God implies the loss of value. However, that is not quite right, and as we continue into Existentialists-before-their-time, we cannot avoid encountering such a one, one of the earliest, who also happens to be a theistic Existentialist. Thus, in a sense Existentialism begins as a form of theism and only later appears in atheistic form. Our theistic Existentialist is Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard is an Existentialist because he accepts, as fully as Sartre or Camus, the absurdity of the world. But he does not begin with the postulate of the non-existence of God, but with the principle that nothing in the world, nothing available to sense or reason, provides any knowledge or reason to believe in God. While traditional Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, saw the world as providing evidence of God’s existence, and also thought that rational arguments a priori could establish the existence of God, Kierkegaard does not think that this is the case. But Kierkegaard’s conclusion about this could just as easily be derived from Sartre’s premises. After all, if the world is absurd, and everything we do is absurd anyway, why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? And what could be more absurd than to believe in God? So why not? The atheists don’t have any reason to believe in anything else, or really even to disbelieve in that, so we may as well go for it! This is sometimes compared to Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), who said, “The heart has reasons that the mind cannot understand”; but really, if the heart has reasons, then, indeed, there are reasons, and the world is not an absurd place. Pascal is a mystic (like some other mathematicians), not an Existentialist. The precedent for Kierkegaard is really more like the Latin Church Father Tertullian (c.160-220), who, when taunted about the absurdity of Christian doctrine, retorted that he believed it because it was absurd. Without reasons of heart or mind, Kierkegaard can only get to God by a “leap of faith.” This is the equivalent of the acts of will in the classic Existentialists, and equally fragile. A leap of faith attains no reasons it did not have before, and so the position of faith remains irrational. But it does achieve something a little different. A position of faith, however it is attained, does bring with it certain responsibilities. Belief in a real God is going to bring with it the Law, as the moral teachings of one’s religion, whichever it is, cannot then just be ignored. This returns one to the complications of traditional morality, the kind of thing that Nietzsche or Sartre or Heidegger would just as soon ignore. In retrospect, however, the three of them should have taken traditional morality a bit, or a lot, more seriously than they did. The project of dumping the whole business did not have edifying results, either personally or politically. Kierkegaard’s moral and religious seriousness offered a more promising basis for the development of Existentialist themes than the basically nihilistic, egocentric, and hopeless approach of Nietzsche, Sartre, and the others. Philosophers who make their own leap of faith to Marxism or Naziism have really discredited their own source of inspiration. Thus, while Sartre achieved for a time a higher profile in the fashionable literary world, theistic Existentialists, like Nikolay Berdyayev (1874-1948), Paul Tillich (1886-1965), and Martin Buber (1878-1965) continued Kierkegaard’s work with updated approaches to traditional religions. Atheistic Existentialism really exhausted itself: The effort of will required for Sisyphus to maintain his enthusiasm is really beyond most human capacity, and better the solace of traditional religion than the vicious pseudo-religions of communism or fascism. The personal failures of Sartre or Heidegger, however, do demonstrate their seriousness, and the fact that the absurdity of the world for them was not a joke, was not fun, but a terror. Their failure was in the direction of the solution they sought, a solution that could not be bound by some fairly simple and fundamental moral considerations. It wasn’t just that they couldn’t bring themselves to believe in God. They couldn’t bring themselves to believe in right and wrong. But the principle of Dostoevsky’s nihilist, that “without God, all is permitted,” really represents an impoverished reading of the history of philosophy, and of religion also. Plato’s Forms did not depend on God, nor Schopenhauer’s sense of justice and compassion (of which Nietzsche cannot have been unaware), while the Buddha Dharma is the moral teaching of a religion that explictly rejects the existence of a God. Thus, Nietzsche and Sartre base their thought on a false inference. It simply does not follow that if there is no God, then all is permitted. It doesn’t even follow that there is no religion. Nor does it follow that everything is without meaning. When Beethoven faced his own growing deafness, he knew that he could still create music, create beauty, even if completely deaf. That is what happened. But Plato already pointed out that beauty is a tangible kind of value, something we can see and touch (or hear), and a clue to the reality of all value, even the kind that we cannot see. The Existentialists, even the theistic ones, seem to have overlooked that. Existentialism has often been expressed, as we have seen, in art. Probably the supreme Existentialist movie was the 1958 film The Seventh Seal, by the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. At the beginning, we have a Knight and a Squire returning from the Crusades. They find that the Plague is raging. This is anachronistic, since the Crusades ended for most practical purposes in 1270 (Acre itself was lost in 1291, the latest a Crusader would actually have been in the Holy Land), while the Black Death began in Europe in 1346, arriving in Sweden in 1350. Be that as it may, after landing on the beach, the Knight is confronted by Death himself, who informs him that his time is up. Since the Knight does not want to die because he feels he has not found the meaning or purpose of life, he challenges Death to a game of chess. Death accepts, and through most of the rest of the movie, as the Knight and Squire travel back to the Knight’s castle, the chess game continues in the evenings, with Death invisible to all others. There is an exception to that, however. The Knight and Squire begin to collect a group of travelers, and among them is a family of Players, a husband and wife (interestingly named Joseph and Mary) and their child. The husband plays the Fool in the performance we see. When we meet them, the Fool has a vision of the Virgin Mary — as visible to us as to him. This ends up being an important factor in the meaning of the movie. Later, as the group approaches the Knight’s castle, the Fool sees Death playing chess with the Knight. He tells his wife that they better get out of there, and they do. Meanwhile, we have been learning about the mentality of the Knight and the Squire. The Knight wants what, in Existentialist terms, he cannot have: A rational understanding of the meaning and purpose of life. The Squire has no such illusions. He is the type of the atheistic Existentialist, who knows that life is meaningless and the universe empty, with little but horror for us to expect. The very night that the Fool sees Death, the Knight loses the chess game. Death tells him that the next time they meet, he will take the Knight and everyone with him. The next day they arrive at the Knight’s castle, where his wife has been waiting for him many years. At dinner that night, there is a knock on the door. No one is there, and everyone now knows that it will be Death. The Knight again prays for knowlege, and the Squire tells him, in some detail, there is none to have. The Knight’s wife tells him to be quiet. The Squire will be quiet, but he says he protests. Again, this is the type of the atheistic Existentialist, who recognizes but doesn’t have to like the absurdity of the world. But this is not the last word in the movie. In the end, we are back with the Fool and his family. Now he has a vision of Death leading the Knight and all the others away. He and his wife and child, however, will go on living. So who is the Fool? He is the theistic Existentialist. He has neither the aspirations of the Knight nor the disillusionment of the Squire. Gifted with his visions, like Pascal, he has no difficulty finding happiness and meaning — indeed, he and his wife are the happiest people in the movie. They even find life, which is dramatically denied to the others. Presumably, this is Bergman’s own final comment, reflecting a religious seriousness we also see in his The Virgin Spring — though his public statements lead many to think that the Squire reflects his true sentiments. If that is the case, the Fool, with his happy ending, would not belong in the movie. Religiously serious or not, The Seventh Seal may have given rise to more parodies than any other movie, from Woody Allen’s Love and Death 1975 to Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey 1991. The final word on Existentialism may come from the immortal detective novel The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett 1929. In Chapter 7, “G in the Air,” the detective Sam Spade tells his client, Brigid O’Shaughnessy, a story while they are waiting to meet Joel Cairo. This was left out of the 1941 movie by John Huston. The story was about “A man named Flitcraft” who “had left his real-estate-office, in Tacoma, to go to luncheon one day and had never returned.” The man vanished completely, and there was never even a hint that there had been any financial trouble, lovers, kidnapping, or anything else understandable. He was just gone. Seven years later, Spade was sent out to check on a man who had been seen in Spokane and identified as Flitcraft. It was him, living as he had in Tacoma, with a family and a successful business. Flitcraft explained that as he was going to lunch years earlier, he had passed a building under construction. A beam had fallen from the building “and smacked the sidewalk alongside him.” He was unhurt except for a cut from a bit of concrete that the beam had chipped off on impact. What bothered him was the senselessness of it all. His nice orderly life might have been destroyed by a totally random event. “He felt like somebody had taken the lid off life and let him look at the works.” He had always felt “in step with his surroundings.” Now he saw that “in sensibly ordering his affairs he had got out of step, and not into step, with life.” So he adjusted. He took a boat to San Francisco and began to live a life as random as the falling beam. This lasted for a while, but eventually he drifted back to Washington State and settled down in Spokane. I don’t think he even knew he had settled back naturally into the same groove he had jumped out of in Tacoma. But that’s the part of it I always liked. He adjusted himself to beams falling, and then no more of them fell, and he adjusted himself to them not falling.
    This seems to be what happened to many Existentialists. The empty, meaningless world is ultimately intolerable, and major figures of Existentialism seem to drift towards some tangible source of value and meaning. Thus, Sartre took up Marxism, and Heidegger Naziism. Camus may have been spared this by an early death, at 47. The most vernable and durable form of Existentialism, the theistic, obviously gains the most substantial referent for value and meaning.
    There ended up being more than a little of Flitcraft in Dashiell Hammett himself, who was living a conventional life with a family and a job with the Pinkerton’s Detective Agency. When he was diagnosed with tuberculosis, he abandoned his wife to devote his last energies to writing. The world of his “Continental Op” detective, and then Sam Spade, is a bleak one, where the only real value seems to be the determination of the detective to do his job. Hammett was unable to sustain this vision in his own life. He got religion by joining the Communist Party. In this company he crossed paths with Lillian Hellman. Their relationship inspired his last published novel, The Thin Man, which featured the only sympathetic woman in his writings. Unfortunately, Hammett’s fame and the sophisticated literary circles in which he then lived ruined his career. Hellman and her friends expected him to begin writing “serious” literature, not just popular detective stories. He never made the transition, but also lost his inspiration even for the detective stories. And his devotion to the Party got him some jail time, when he was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)].
    This was a sad end for Hammett, almost worse than COMP. Neither defeat nor disgrace ever slowed down Heidegger’s productivity (I think he was a man without conscience), while both Sartre and Heidegger continued to be celebrated, regardless of the folly or viciousness of their politics. Hammett, in gaining a lover and a reputation, lost his Muse and only managed to martyr himself for Stalinism. Talk about an absurd universe.
    Since it was the way of post-War Communists to dissimulate and to conceal their beliefs and commitments, Hellman lived in a culture of deception. This was probably why Mary McCarthy said of her in 1979, ‘" (a comment that may refer specifically to the story that ended up as the 1977 Jane Fonda movie Julia, a memoir of Hellman now thought to be entirely fictional). Hammett, a sincere believer, went to prison for refusing to answer questions about a group to which he belonged that raised bail for convicted Communist Party leaders. Having lost his literary inspiration, he nevertheless was able to write pro-Commuinist and pro-Soviet propaganda pieces. Before Joseph McCarthy, he avoided trouble by simply taking the Fifth Amendment. While the Left still loves to portray such people as simply standing up for Free Speech, it was never actually illegal to belong to the Communist Party, but active members of the “underground” Party (as opposed to the public leadership) never announced what they believed or acknowledged their membership. They did not believe, as their political successors do not believe, in Free Speech. They certainly took no advantage of it. Members of the Party, however, were required to register as “agents of a foreign power,” since the Party was financed and controlled by Moscow, a truth known, but denied, at the time, and now confirmed from Soviet sources. Members like Hammett eventually began taking the Fifth Amendment rather than admit they had not registered.
    Contracts imply that some balance, in the informed estimation of the contractors (where that is possible), has been struck between the interests pursued by one in behalf of the other (the goods or services rendered), and those pursued or rendered in return. Since a contract is an exchange of goods, it contrasts with non-contractual duties of commission, which call on the agent to act for the good of others without certainty of recompense, or with privileges (rights, powers) of necessity, which compel another to provide certain goods, but with a positive duty on the beneficiary for later recompense. Normally anyone is free to give supererogatory aid and assistance out of charity and compassion — goods for nothing in return — but making this a general obligation, as altruistic moralism does, erases the existence of contracts — an agreement to exchange goods is hardly necessary when one is obliged to give goods anyway, for nothing in return.
    A line therefore must be drawn between goods for others that will only concern us through contractual actions rebounding to our self-interest, and those goods for others that may make demands on us to act out of moral duty for the sake of those others even without expectation of benefit to ourselves. This motivates condition, that there is an duty where the other is in danger of serious and irreversible harm, the situation where someone would acknowledge their helpless state, perhaps, just by crying, “Help.” Such a “help,” however, cannot always be taken at face value. Some people may be in need of help without being able to acknowledge it; others may ask for or continue asking for help when they actually are not in need of it — their helplessness can become a way of using others and so wronging them rather than being responsible for their own self-interest. That helplessness can be real fraud, a deliberate manipulation of others, or it can arise merely from incontinence, which like negligence is a moral weakness or carelessness of will. This is the problem with Marx’s principle for the utopian society: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”; for according to that principle it is worth the most to each individual to have as little ability and as many needs as possible. Ability is easily concealed — and many abilities are not even revealed except under stress and real need — and needs are easily claimed, with any critical response attacked as heartless and selfish. It is a lot easier to claim need rather than exert oneself to develop and apply abilities.
    Von Neumann substantially invented the digital computer. He built the prototype in the basement of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, although it was later torn out, despite its historical value, because the Institute doesn’t believe in machinery. Von Newmann is buried near the great mathematician Kurt Gödel in the Princeton Cemetery.
    One of the most conspicuous and durable contributions of Game Theory is the distinction between positive, negative, and zero “sum” games. A “zero sum game” means the values found at the end of the game or transaction are equal to the values at the beginning, so that the difference (the “sum” of a substraction) is zero. Another way to look at it is that if one player ends up in possession of greater value at the end of the game than he did at the beginning, his gain must have come from the loss of the other player. Popular games, from chess to baseball, where one player wins and the other loses, are zero sum games because, where the only value is winning, one player wins and the other loses. People with Cargo Cult conceptions of economics, where wealth simply exists in fixed quantities, and everyone deserves their slice of the “pie,” will think of economics as a zero sum game, so that the successful have acquired their wealth at the expense of others.
    However, free economic transactions are generally positive sum games. This was already understood with great clarity by Benjamin Franklin:
    In transactions of trade, it is not to be suppos’d that like gaming, what one party gains the other must necessarily lose. The gain to each may be equal. If A had more corn than he can consume, but wants cattle, and B has more cattle but wants corn, an exchange is a gain to each; hereby the common stock of comforts in life is increas’d. 1783
    In such transactions, each party is better off at the end. The quantity of corn and cattle may be the same at the beginning and end of the exchange, but the surpluses of corn and cattle are useless in themselves to their producers. In the end, each has more of what he can use and the value of the whole has increased. In free economic exchanges, neither party may get exactly what they want, since a vendor would always like to sell for more, and a buyer would always like to buy for less, but the voluntary nature of the exchange means that each must compromise with the other.
    On the other hand, robbery is a negative sum game. The exchange is involuntary. One party is left with nothing, while the other party, the robber, has acquired goods that are worth less to him than they had been to the original owner. Usually, the best that the robber can do is recover a fraction of the value of his loot by selling it to a fence. The fence will only buy at a deep discount. Very often the robber acquires things that were only of personal value to their owner and that the robber realizes will be worth nothing to him. So he throws them away. This is frequently the most painful aspect of burglery and robbery. Television sets or cash are usually fungible — i.e. they can be replaced with items that are equally valuable — but personal items are not. Sometimes robbers deliberately destroy homes and personal items in acts of vandalism, just to express their contempt and hostility for their victims. This is a particularly ugly manifestation of human nature, but not at all uncommon. The wicked not only have no sympathy for their victims; they despise them.
    There is one kind of free market exchange that is a negative sum game. That is short trading. This is a negative sum game just because it occurs with falling prices. The value at the end of the business is thus necessarily going to be less that at the beginning. The only question is who gets stuck with the depreciated asset. The skill of short trading, and it is a skill that specialists exercise best, is to make sure that others get stuck with the loss. As prices fall, the short trader borrows stock or some other asset, sells it, and then buys it back, for less, after the price has gone down. This leaves the original owner of the stock, who might simply be a broker, back in possession of an asset that has lost its value, while the short trader has made a profit in the standard way — of buying low and selling high, although the sequence is reversed. Short traders often have a bad reputation. They are not liked because, as “Bears,” they profit from a falling market, where mostly everyone else loses. Also, they may engage in spreading rumors or other manipulations that encourage or even cause falling values (George Soros, a short trading master, has been accused of this). It is also possible for them to engage in “naked trading,” where they don’t even bother to borrow an asset, but sell with a promise to deliver, and then wait to deliver the asset after they buy some with the money from the sale. This is of questionable, at least, legality. Nevertheless, short traders often perform a very important service. When Jay Gould tried to corner the Gold market in 1869, his strategy was to buy gold and drive up prices. Others then borrowed gold (even from Gould) to sell, on the expectation that Gould would fail in his play and the prices would fall back down, enabling them to buy back and recover a profit. In “cornering the market,” Gould thus was actually trying to bankrupt everyone betting against him by the short trading. Nobody, of course, wanted Gould to succeed; and when President Grant ordered the Treasury to sell gold, the price broke, the short traders won, and Gould’s position was destroyed. However, seeing the crash coming, he had secretly been selling as well as buying and so was protected from significant loss. It did, however, destroy his reputation. Few shed a tear over this. The episode set off a Congressional investigation, where Grant’s enemies (i.e. Southern sympathizing Democrats) wanted to blame it all on him. Much the same thing happened when the Hunt Brothers (Nelson Bunker Hunt and Herbert Hunt) tried to corner the Silver market in 1980.
    Political rent seeking tends to be a negative sum game. Economic exchanges may become involuntary in whole or in part. One party is forced into something they would not otherwise agree to, and the result easily is no benefit for that party and an absolute loss of value. A classic case, curiously enough, is rent control for residental housing. The rent seekers are actually the renters, who want terms and conditions that landlords would not or could not agree to. The renters, however, believe that they have a right to pay rent on their own terms, and, in places like New York, Santa Monica, etc., they are able to get their way through politics. Since the result is that landlords may be required to operate their properties at a loss, since they cannot charge market rents, a striking consequence over the years, particuarly in New York City, has been, not only the neglect of the properties, which are not worth the maintenance, but outright abandonment of residential apartment buildings. Abandoned buildings attract squatters, crime, and fires, so the buildings in time tend to get demolished, leaving vacant areas in the South Bronx or Harlem. It has thus been said that the only thing worse for a housing market than rent control is bombing. Areas of New York City have looked bombed out for years.
    The justification for government intervention in economic exchanges has long been the argument that one of the trading parties is at a unfair disadvantage. This sometimes happens. If you wander out of the desert dying of starvation and thirst, it actually would be a positive sum game if you are required to sell yourself into slavery in order to receive food and water. Otherwise you would be dead. Since no person of good conscience would wish to enforce such an exchange on someone so vulnerable, it is more than reasonable that the law should refuse to enforce the terms of that kind of exchange. Most people would agree that this is proper. The principle, however, can be improperly generalized. Marxism or other critiques of Capitalism hold that wage laborers in general are in the situation of the starving wanderer, and that no agreement between capital and labor can be trusted to be fair to the latter. This view is quite common even among intellectuals who do not otherwise seem to be leftist ideologues, like Jacques Barzan, who says:
    [Simonde de Sismondi’s] detailed criticism of the new society includes the observation that it splits labor from capital and makes them enemies, with the power all on one side. The idea of their “bargaining” over wages is absurd. Tyrant and victim describes the relation, yet without cruel intent of the one or knowledge by the other of who his oppressor is. [boldface added, see reference and discussion in note for Say’s Law]
    The claims here are mistaken at at least two crucial levels. If workers only had one employer to bargain with, they might indeed be in the situation of the starving wanderer, and their relationship would be “tyrant and victim.” However, in a free market economy there are other employers, and the employers are engaged in competitive bidding for the workers. Supply and demand determine a market wage. The Marxist will counter (1) that employers will collude to hold down wages, and (2) as the economy consolidates into monopolies, the number of employers will also decline, perhaps down to just one anyway.
    While such claims tend to be immune to contrary evidence, the evidence is nevertheless against it. Employers may indeed attempt to collude over wages (or prices), but the problem with such combinations has always been the temptation of some members to gain an advantage by violating the agreements. Paying higher wages will attract better (and happier) workers. Even before anti-trust law prohibited collusion between employers on wages and prices, modern law never enforced contracts “in restraint of trade.” A cartel of employers (or vendors) thus could never enforce its agreements against its members, who were then free to undercut such agreements. The result historically was rising real wages in both Britain and America all through the 19th century, when the workers supposedly were at the greatest disadvantage. This is what happened, and theoretically it is not that difficult to understand why.
    The further Marxist claim that an economy matures into monopolies begins with some superficial plausibility. The chaos of a young industry in time does lead to a shake down where smaller participants go out of business or are bought by larger ones. Since 1980 this has been the visible dynamic in the computer industry. However, even where an industry may only have one real participant, as Alcoa was once the only American aluminum company, its prices may not have the look of monopolistic price gouging. That is because they know that competition is always possible. A free market has “free entry,” where a new business can always be created to compete with an old one. IBM was about to be prosecuted for anti-trust violations as a monopoly (“Big Blue”) when prosecutors realized that it was in some danger of being bankrupted by new businesses in computers. The case was quietly dropped, as IBM tried to adjust to a new competitive environment.
    Thus, collusion between employers or the monopolization of a market historically has not had the practical effect expected by Marxism. Most importantly, Barzan’s statement that capitalism “splits labor from capital and makes them enemies” overlooks the most improtant feature of “free entry”: Wage laborers can and have simply started their own businesses. This erases the “split” between labor and capital and introduces further competition in both wages and prices.
    An interesting complication there is that we see that small businesses tend to get started by certain ethnic groups — Chinese, Indians (from India), Jews, Arabs, Koreans, Nigerian Ibos, etc. This happens because starting and running a small business requires particular kinds of knowledge which are best learned by doing, at the knee of one’s parents, rather than by book learning. Where the relevant experience is part of a cultural tradition, as with Chinese or Jews, this is a stock of human capital that is not otherwise obtained as easily.
    Not surprisingly, a great deal of anti-Capitalist critique focuses a special hostility on successful entrepreneurial minority groups. Marxism not only tends to anti-Semitism but begins with a great deal of anti-Semitism in Marx himself. The success of Jews or Koreans highlights the existence of free entry and the very avenues out of “wage slavery” that someone like Marx is at pains to deny. There is also the circumstance, I suspect, that because intellectuals like Marx and Jacques Barzan do not know how to start or run businesses, they have little understanding or awareness of how this can even be done.
    When the law accepts something like the Marxist critique of Capitalism, which it does to a great extent even in the United States, one effect is to burden entry with costs and regulations that express a distrust and dislike of business. The ironic effect of this is to make it more difficult for people to start businesses, enter a market, introduce new competition in wages and prices, or escape “wage slavery.” The effect is thus to produce something like the very conditions that such costs and regulations are supposedly being created to prevent. Even worse, it is not unknown for businesses to perceive the anti-competitive and protective tendencies of such laws and to enthusiastically join in their promotion and enforcement. Policies to “protect” workers or consumers become instruments of rent seeking by business.
    Involuntary exchange thus strongly tends to slip into a negative sum game, motivated by rent seekers, even when the rhetoric and the noble purpose may be to prevent exchanges at unfair advantage. Some people simply don’t know or don’t care what an unfair advantage is. In 1980 a cousin of mine built houses in San Bernardino County by taking out $34 in permits. By 1992 the permits had risen to $14,000. In 1998, the City of Los Angeles might tax a new business, which hadn’t even turned a profit yet, $11,000 — while the City of Glendale only demanded $124. It is not hard to imagine how the rising costs of the San Bernardino permits, or the taxes in the City of Los Angeles, consitute barriers to entry that make it impossible for many and difficult for all to become their own employers. Oh yes, there is also the little trick that the self-employed immediately pay twice as much in Social Security taxes. One could be excused from wondering if, after all, some monopolistic conspiracy is not indeed behind such things.
    In 1994 Nash, with two others, received a Noble Prize for their work, much of it in the early 1950’s, in Game Theory. In the later 50’s, Nash developed symptoms of schizophrenia, which for some years ruined his career. The movie is largely about that, though it places the development of the disease earlier than it actually was. Otherwise, much of what is said about Nash’s work is simply false. Nash did not refute Adam Smith or “[fly] in the face of a hundred and fifty years of economic theory.” These statements look like the wishful thinking of a leftist Hollywood scriptwriter hoping for any angle with which to belabor capitalism — though then unwilling, or unable, to explain in any cogent way why it is so. In fact, Nash’s results have often been thought of by “progressives” as unfair or irrational.
    In the case of the game example above, a positive sum game, where only one “non-cooperative” move is involved, which means that the players have no knowledge of the other’s move, the betrayal strategy is the best strategy for each individual because it will always produce a positive result. The 1,1 outcome is the “Nash Equilibrium” because, in the absence of knowledge of the other player’s move, it is the rational strategy to “maximize utility” by avoiding the possibility of a 0 result. However, it is the characteristic of the Prisoner’s Dilemma that this “best strategy” result does not maximize mutual or overall utility, and in retrospect it seems foolish (or, at best, unfortunate), even if the players cannot have known better: The double “keep faith” result involves a 6 point benefit overall, the single betrayal 5, and the double betrayal only 2, which is worse than the individual benefit, 3, as the result of mutually keeping faith. Each player, indeed, can do better individually by consistently getting the other player to keep faith while being betrayed, like Lucy and Charlie Brown (this would involve communciation and thus ironically would be a “cooperative” game), but in real life with sensible persons this is unlikely and is not an issue in a non-cooperative game anyway. The Nash Equilibrium thus could be accused of suffering from the same evils as capitalism itself, allowing self-interest to overcome the common good and tempting each player into deceiving the other, like Lucy, and scoring the maximum benefit.
    This failing can be seen as partially remedied in the “Nash Solution,” which is about cooperative games and which includes the condition that both players cannot have simultaneously done better through different strategies. With those conditions, the 3,3 result would be the Nash Solution. Although I don’t have the dates pinned down, this could well have been Nash’s response to the first examples of the Prisoner’s Dilemma-like games, about which he was informed, in 1950. Unfortunately, the Nash Solution is also subject to objections that it is unfair or inequitable. This is because in the real world the same objects have different utility for different persons. Thus, if a bequest is left to two persons, one rich and one poor, on the condition that they decide among themselves how to divide it up, otherwise they lose it, this puts the poor person at a negotiating disadvantage. The money means more to the poor man, has greater relative utility, than it does to the rich man, who doesn’t really need it in the same way. The result is that the rich man, by the threat of sinking the deal, can obtain agreement for a larger share. This would strike most people as unfair, and indeed in such real bequests the condition usually would only be that the recepients “share and share alike.” That condition would strike most people as just because it shouldn’t matter what the relative utility of the money is and each person should be treated alike. The requirement of equal utility both explains the real world advantage of a wealthier person in a real situations that are like this and is thus likely to remind those inclined to believe such things of the evils of capitalism itself. Both the Nash Equilibrium and the Nash Solution are thus going to be cold comfort to the Left, whether in Hollywood or elsewhere.
    Although the same amount of money may be of less relative utility to the rich person, there is also the circumstance, for those concerned about the common good, that the money in the hands of the rich man is of greater social utility. That is because the rich man will not need to spend the money on necessities and very likely will not even spend the money on luxuries. It will probably be added to investment capital (so as to increase income permanently rather than just blowing a windfall). This is of greater social utility because capital spending increases wealth, even for the poor man. This is the effect of Say’s Law, which is what the Left disbelieves and hates about capitalism the most. If the rich person doesn’t “need” the money, then it should go to the poor man, the reasoning would go, and all this talk about capital spending is just “trickle down economics” — a lie designed to deceive the poor and gullible while all that the capitalists are doing is increasing their profits. Capital spending can, indeed, increase profits — though after several years in operation a very successful business, still has not turned a profit: Profit, in that example and as seen above, is uncertain; so capital spending must initially mean something else. It means, indeed, increased production or increased productivity, both of which serve to drive down real prices across the economy, thereby benefiting the poor man who is spending his money on consumer goods. That is Say’s Law, and the real benefit of capitalism. The Nash Solution therefore does not represent anything unjust or inequitable. It is about maximizing social utility overall, which benefits everyone, rich or poor. So Adam Smith doesn’t quite get refuted yet.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:35pm
    Link Reply
    + -4

    WOW MY EYE SOCKETS ACHE…

  • CApe 05/25/2008 6:38pm

    cntrl end will take you to the bottom of the page and maybe you won’t have to scroll up as much as down.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:41pm

    Come on. What the hell do you think those huge posts accomplish? NOTHING

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:44pm

    Provoking, antagonizing, posting lengthly irrelevant comments are just all part of the play book to distract and annoy. Guess what side that play book is from. A vote is a powerful thing.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:45pm

    Also, cntrl home will take you to the top of the page.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:50pm

    Some of those idiots better study “the book” a little more. They are not accomplishing anything that will help them in the least.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:52pm

    Well, I meant the karl rove republican play book. It’s clearly not meant to teach or help anyone but themselves.

  • Anonymous 05/25/2008 6:55pm

    I know, There is many “books” and I have read many of them. Now I follow my heart.


Vote on This Bill

77% Users Support Bill

272 in favor / 79 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments