< Back to Current Version

Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

Changes from October 1, 2020 to October 1, 2024

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause October 1, 2020
in the House of Representatives
James V. Saturno
Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution is known generally as the Origination
Specialist on Congress and
Clause because it requires that
the Legislative Process

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

As generally understood, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not originate any measure that
includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to
a House-passed non-revenue measure. However, the Senate may generally amend a House-originated revenue measure as it
sees fit.
Although the House may choose to enforce its prerogative through any of several methods, the most common is through the
adoption of a privileged resolution returning the measure to the Senate. Because this resolution has historically been printe d
on blue paper, this is known as blue-slipping.
This report also includes a table identifying all measures returned to the Senate as a result of a blue -slip resolution during the
102nd-116th Congresses (1991-2020).
For more information on the Origination Clause and its enfo rcement, see CRS Report RL31399, The Origination Clause of
the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, by James V. Saturno.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 8 Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

Contents
Tables
Table 1. Blue Slip Resolutions, 102nd-116th Congress (1991-2020) .......................................... 3

Contacts
Author Information ......................................................................................................... 5

Congressional Research Service

Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution is known general y as the Origination
Clause because it requires:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
As general y understood, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not
originate any measure that includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may
not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to a House-passed non-revenue measure.
However, the Senate may general y amend a House-originated revenue measure as it sees fit.
The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process
known as “blue-slipping.”1 Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a
measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination
Clause. The House takes this action by adopting a privileged resolution stating that a Senate bil
or Senate amendment(s) to a non-revenue House bil , “in the opinion of this House, contravenes
the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States
and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bil [or suc h bil with the
Senate amendment(s) thereto] be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.” This action is cal ed blue-slipping because historical y the
resolution returning the offending bil to the Senate is printed on blue paper. The consideration of
questions of privilege by the House is provided for under House Rule IX, clause 2(a)(1),2 which
states:
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor
by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House,
or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Con stitution, shall have
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn [emphasis added].
Any Member of the House may offer such a resolution. In most cases it is the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee who would do so based on the advice of the House Parliamentarian,
although another member of the committee may be designated. Consideration of the resolution
takes place in the House of Representatives under the one-hour rule. Clause 2(a)(2) of House
Rule IX further provides:
The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the floor as a question of the
privileges of the House shall be equally divided between (A) the proponent of the
resolution, and (B) the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee, as determined
by the Speaker.
There have been instances, however, where other Members have offered blue-slip resolutions
when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee did not believe that the bil in question
violated the Origination Clause, and the resolution was subsequently tabled.3
Although blue-slipping is the primary method used by the House for enforcement of the
Origination Clause, it may in its discretion also use a variety of less formal actions. For example,
in the past the House has occasional y chosen simply to ignore a Senate-passed bil and instead
taken action on a corresponding House bil . The House may also refer a questionable Senate

1 T he term blue-slipping is also sometimes used in an unrelated sense by the Senate in connectio n with the nomination
of federal judges.
2 For additional information on the consideration of questions of privilege generally, see CRS Report R44005,
Questions of the Privileges of the House: An Analysis, by Megan S. Lynch.
3 For example, when Representative John Rousselot offered a blue-slip resolution, Representative Dan Rostenkowski,
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, offered a motion to table it. Congressional Record (August
19, 1982), pp. 22127-22128.
Congressional Research Service
1
link to page 6 Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

measure to a committee. In such instances, a committee may choose simply to report a House bil
rather than consider the Senate bil further. The House may also decide to use a conference
committee as a venue for deciding Origination Clause questions by having an offending provision
removed in conference without having to take the formal step of blue-slipping.
If an effort to use an informal alternative does not result in the removal of an offending provision,
it would not prevent the House from later using a blue-slip resolution to enforce its prerogatives.
This is because the enforcement of the Origination Clause is based on a constitutional prerogative
of the House and is therefore distinct from enforcement of its standing rules, which require that
points of order must be raised in a timely manner.4 The House can assert its prerogative at any
time it is in possession of the bil and related papers (that is, anytime the actual documents are not
physical y in the possession of the Senate or a conference committee).5
In addition, because enforcement of the Origination Clause raises a constitutional issue, the
House may not choose simply to waive its application. Although the House is free to determine in
its sole discretion whether it believes that legislation passed by the Senate infringes on its
prerogative to originate revenue legislation, in the absence of such a determination federal courts
have occasional y been asked to rule on whether certain revenue provisions may be
unconstitutional as not having originated in the House.6
The Constitution, however, does not provide specific guidelines as to what constitutes a bil for
raising revenue. What constitutes such a bil has therefore been a question of interpretation. The
precedents and practices of the House apply a broad standard and construe the House’s
prerogatives broadly to include any “meaningful revenue proposal.” This standard is based on a
provision-by-provision review of whether a measure may be considered to have revenue affecting
potential and not simply whether they would directly raise or lower revenues. Examples of the
types of legislation for which this standard would be applicable include not only legislation to
make changes in the tax code directly but also legislation involving any fees not intended as
payment for a specific government service, as wel as any change in import restrictions because
of their potential impact on tariff revenues.
Table 1 identifies al measures returned to the Senate as a result of a blue-slip resolution during
the 102nd-116th Congresses (1991-2020).
For additional information on the Origination Clause, see CRS Report RL31399, The Origination
Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, by James V. Saturno.




4 For more, see CRS Report 98-307, Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Valerie
Heitshusen.
5 For example, in the 111th Congress, the House adopted H.Res. 1653, a resolution to return to the Senate a group of
five Senate bills and the Senate amendment to a non-revenue House bill that had passed the Senate and been received
in the House at various times during the Congress.
6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Report on the Legislative and Oversight Activities of the
Com m ittee on Ways and Means during the 115 th Congress, H.Rept. 115-1115, 115th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington:
GPO, 2015), p. 136. T he report cites U.S. v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) as an example.
Congressional Research Service
2
Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

Table 1. Blue Slip Resolutions, 102nd-116th Congress (1991-2020)
Date
Resolution
Measure Returned to the Senate
102nd Congress


October 22, 1991
H.Res. 251
S. 1241 (The Violent Crime Act of 1991). This measure included
several provisions amending the Internal Revenue Code.
October 31, 1991
H.Res. 267
S. 320 (To reauthorize the Export Administration Act of 1979). This
measure included several provisions that would impose, or authorize
the imposition of, a ban on certain imports based on certain practices
by Iraq, including the proliferation and use of chemical and biological
weapons and the transfer of missile technology.
February 25, 1992
H.Res. 373
S. 884 (To amend the Driftnet Moratorium Enforcement Act of 1991).
This measure included a provision to require the President to impose
economic sanctions (including imposing a ban on certain imports)
against countries that fail to eliminate large-scale driftnet fishing.
103rd Congress


July 14, 1994
H.Res. 479
H.R. 4539 (Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriation Act, 1995). A Senate amendment would have prohibited
the Treasury from using appropriated funds to enforce an Internal
Revenue Code requirement.
July 21, 1994
H.Res. 486
S. 729 (To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act). This measure
included several provisions prohibiting the importation of specific
categories of products containing more than specified quantities of lead.
July 21, 1994
H.Res. 487
S. 1030 (Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994). This
measure included a provision that would exempt from taxation certain
payments made on behalf of participants in the Education Debt
Reduction Program.
August 12, 1994
H.Res. 518
H.R. 4554 (Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriation Act,
1995). A Senate amendment would have provided authority for the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to col ect fees in excess of the
costs of regulating products under their jurisdiction to be charged to a
broad cross-section of the public (rather than just those directly
connected to the regulated activities) in order to fund the cost of FDA
activities general y.
October 7, 1994
H.Res. 577
S. 1216 (The Crow Boundary Settlement Act of 1994). This measure
included a provision exempting certain payments and benefits from
taxation.
104th Congress


March 21, 1996
H.Res. 387
S. 1518 (To repeal the Tea Importation Act of 1897). This measure
included language changing import restrictions.
April 16, 1996
H.Res. 402
S. 1463 (To amend the Trade Act of 1974). This measure included
language that would have had the effect of changing the basis and
mechanism for import restrictions that could be imposed under
authority granted to the President.
September 27, 1996
H.Res. 545
S. 1311 (The National Physical Fitness and Sports Foundation
Establishment Act). This measure included a provision waiving the
application of certain rules governing recognition of tax-exempt status
for the foundation established in this measure.
September 28, 1996
H.Res. 554
H.R. 400 (The Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange and Wilderness
Redesignation Act of 1995). The Senate amendment included a
provision expanding the definition of actions not subject to Federal,
State, or local taxation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Congressional Research Service
3
Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

Date
Resolution
Measure Returned to the Senate
105th Congress


March 5, 1998
H.Res. 379
S. 104 (The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997). This measure included
language to repeal an existing revenue law (labeled a fee) and replace it
with a user fee.
October 15, 1998
H.Res. 601
S. 361 (The Tiger and Rhinoceros Conservation Act of 1998). This
measure included language that would have had the effect of changing
the basis and mechanism for applying import restrictions on products
containing any substance derived from tigers or rhinoceroses.
106th Congress


July 16, 1999
H.Res. 249
S. 254 (The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and
Rehabilitation Act of 1999). This measure included a provision that
would have had the effect of banning the import of large capacity
ammunition feeding devices.
November 18, 1999
H.Res. 393
S. 4 (The Soldiers’, Sailors’, Airmen’s, and Marines’ Bil of Rights Act of
1999). This measure included a provision al owing members of the
Armed Forces to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Program and
to avoid certain tax consequences.
107th Congress


September 20, 2001
H.Res. 240
H.R. 2500 (Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and related agencies Appropriations Act, 2002). The Senate
amendment included a provision banning the importation of diamonds
not certified as originating outside conflict zones.
111th Congress


September 23, 2010
H.Res. 1653
H.R. 5875 (Emergency Border Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010).
(returning six
The Senate amendment included a provision requiring certain
measures)
employers to pay a surcharge with respect to each application for
certain worker visas with the additional amount to be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury.
S. 3162; This measure included a provision amending the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
S. 3187 (Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010). This
measure included a provision extending fuel and ticket taxes that fund
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
S. 2799 (Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment
Act of 2009). This measure included a provision banning the
importation of goods from Iran.
S. 1023 (Travel Promotion Act of 2009). This measure included a
provision requiring users of the government’s visa waiver program to
pay a surcharge with some of the proceeds to be used to pay for
program costs general y.
S. 951 (New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act). This measure
included a provision directing the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit
proceeds from the sale of certain commemorative coins into the
United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
112th Congress


December 12, 2012
H.Res. 829
H.R. 4310 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013).
The Senate amendment included provisions imposing sanctions,
including import sanctions, on persons conducting sanctionable
activities with Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
114th Congress


Congressional Research Service
4
Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives

June 25, 2015
H.Res. 340
H.R. 1735 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016).
The Senate amendment would have changed the tax treatment of the
Military Retirement Fund.
Source: Congressional Research Service, including information from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways
and Means, Report on the Legislative and Oversight Activities of the Committee on Ways and Means during the 114th
Congress, H.Rept. 114-887, 114th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2016), pp. 130-33.
Notes: To date, there have been no blue-slip resolutions adopted since the 114th Congress. In addition to the
blue-slip resolutions identified in this table, however, it should be noted that during the 115th Congress, H.Res.
1019 was offered as a question of the privileges of the House and adopted on July 24, 2018. The privileged
resolution recommitted H.R. 5515 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019) to the committee
on conference as an infringement of the prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures. This marked
the first time the House had adopted a resolution that assessed a committee on conference had ‘ originated’ a
revenue measure, although the House had previously tabled a similar resolution during the 106th Congress
(H.Res. 568, Congressional Record [July 27, 2000], p. 16565).



Author Information

James V. Saturno

Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46556 · VERSION 1 · NEW
5