Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial
Consideration and Amendment in the House,
FY1996-FY2012
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
January 23, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42933
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Summary
Each year, Congress considers appropriations measures that provide funding for various federal
government activities. Such measures are commonly referred to as “regular” appropriations bills.
In recent years, the House has typically considered a regular appropriations bill after first
reaching agreement on the procedural terms of its consideration, most frequently through the
adoption of a special rule, or occasionally through a unanimous consent agreement (UCA).
Rarely have regular appropriations bills been considered as privileged business.
This report examines the terms under which the regular appropriations bills are typically brought
up and initially considered on the House floor, as well as the practices of the House with regards
to amendment opportunities and the waiver of points of order, for FY1996 to FY2012 (104th-112th
Congresses).
House Rule XIII, clause 5(a) allows a motion to be made to provide for consideration of a general
appropriations measure. When a regular appropriations bill is considered as a privileged measure
by this method, this procedure generally permits any amendments thereto that comply with the
rules of the House to be considered. Providing for consideration by a special rule or UCA,
however, allows this amending process to be altered. Such alterations can place preconditions on
the offering of amendments, directly prescribe the amendments that will be in order, waive points
of order against amendments, or place time limits on consideration.
For FY1996 to FY2012, the means used for consideration of most regular appropriations bills
provided for some type of “open” amending process allowing an unrestricted number of
amendments to be offered that comply with House rules. Such processes also often waived points
of order against certain amendments, and, less frequently, required that amendments be preprinted
in the Congressional Record in advance of consideration. The Legislative Branch Appropriations
bill was the one most frequently considered under a “structured” amendment process. On all but
one occasion, the means used for initiating consideration of Legislative Branch bills during this
period specified a list of amendments that could be offered and waived points of order against
those amendments. Structured processes were used for other types of bills on three occasions
through the 110th Congress, and on 13 occasions during the 111th Congress. A “closed” process
allowing no amendments was used on only one occasion, for consideration of the FY2004
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Other practices during this period have included the
imposition of time caps on consideration of the bill, sections of the bill, or amendments.
The standing rules of the House place certain restrictions on when a measure is eligible for
consideration and what content may be considered. The House sometimes chooses to “waive” or
set aside its standing rules during the consideration of certain measures or matters through a
special rule or UCA. For FY1996 to FY2012, the practice of providing broad waivers for “points
of order against consideration” evolved considerably—from providing no waivers or only
waivers of specific rules, to providing blanket waivers of all points of order against consideration
or blanket waivers with exceptions. This change in procedural practice, however, does not
necessarily reflect changes in the content of the bills. The practice of providing waivers for Rule
XXI, clause 2, with exceptions for specified language in the bill, often referred to as the “Armey
Protocol,” steadily increased during this period, until the FY2008 regular appropriations bills. For
the FY2008 to FY2011 bills, only waivers that covered the entire measure were used. Most
recently, a waiver with specified exceptions was provided on one occasion in 112th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Initiating Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills in the House ........................................... 3
Consideration as Privileged ....................................................................................................... 3
Special Rules ............................................................................................................................. 5
Unanimous Consent Agreements............................................................................................... 6
Amending Regular Appropriations Bills in the House .................................................................... 6
Consideration of Amendments to Regular Appropriations Bills ............................................... 7
Limiting Debate and Amendments ...................................................................................... 8
Structuring the Consideration of Amendments Prior to Initial Consideration ........................... 9
Open Amending Processes .................................................................................................. 1
Structured and Closed Amending Processes ....................................................................... 2
Other Amending Processes .................................................................................................. 3
Waiving House Rules Prior to Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills ............................... 4
Consideration Waivers ............................................................................................................... 5
Rule XXI, Clause 2 Waivers ...................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Regular Appropriations Bills and Methods of Initial Consideration.................................. 4
Table 2. Amending Processes for Initial Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills,
FY1996-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 12
Table 3. Waivers of Points of Order Against Consideration for Regular Appropriations
Bills, FY1996-FY2012 ................................................................................................................. 6
Table 4. Rule XXI, Clause 2 Waivers for Initial Consideration for Regular Appropriations
Bills, FY1996-FY2012 ................................................................................................................. 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Introduction
Each year, Congress considers appropriations measures that provide funding for various federal
government activities. Such measures are commonly referred to as “regular” appropriations bills.
Because of the importance of these measures, the standing rules of the House establish special
terms for their consideration, including making them privileged for consideration1 and providing
restrictions on the amendment process to which they are subject.2 In practice, however, the extent
to which these procedures are applicable to a specific regular appropriations bill is often
dependent on whether the House chooses to consider it under these standing rules, or to adopt
alternate procedures for the individual case.
In recent years, the House has typically considered a regular appropriations bill only after first
reaching agreement on the procedural terms of its consideration. Since at least the mid-1990s, the
House has provided for consideration of nearly all regular appropriations bills under special rules,
which are simple resolutions reported by House Rules Committee that set the terms for
considering a measure.3 During this period, the House has also occasionally initiated
consideration under the terms of unanimous consent agreements (UCAs), which have typically
resembled special rules in form and effect.4 Rarely have regular appropriations bills been
considered under their status as privileged business.
House Rule XIII allows a motion to be made to provide for consideration of a general
appropriations bill. When regular appropriations bills are brought to the floor as privileged
business by this method, there are no restrictions on the amendments that may be offered beyond
what is provided in the standing rules of the House. Such rules affect both the content and timing
of amendments, but do not provide significant restrictions on debate or the number of
amendments that may be offered. Consequently, the consideration of a regular appropriations bill
under its privileged status may be time consuming. Since about the 80th Congress (1947-1948),
special rules that govern proceedings on regular appropriations bills have generally also allowed
any amendments to be offered that would otherwise be in order under House rules.5 During the
1 Privileged business can “supersede or interrupt other matters that might otherwise be called up or be pending before
the House” (W[illia]m Holmes Brown, Charles W. Johnson, and John V. Sullivan, House Practice: A Guide to the
Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, 112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011) (hereafter, House
Practice), chapter 36, §4, p. 657). Regular appropriations bills that are reported from the House Appropriations
Committee are privileged business under Rule XIII(5) (House Practice, chapter 4, §3, p. 75).
2 This report does not comprehensively address the details of these special procedures. For further information, see, for
example, CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Jessica Tollestrup;
CRS Report RL32200, Debate, Motions, and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole, by Bill Heniff Jr. and
Elizabeth Rybicki; CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues,
by Jessica Tollestrup; CRS Report RL31055, House Offset Amendments to Appropriations Bills: Procedural
Considerations, by Jessica Tollestrup.
3 The House Rules Committee reports special rules pursuant to House Rule X clause 1(m). For further information on
this process see the Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules for the First Session of the 112th Congress
(H.Rept. 112-357), pp. 24-26.
4 For further information on unanimous consent agreements, see House Practice, chapter 54.
5 Between the late 19th through mid-20th Century, special rules for regular appropriations bills were only used
occasionally, generally to curtail amendments. From the 80th (1947-1948) through 104th (1995-1996) Congresses,
however, special rules for regular appropriations bills were used with much greater frequency, and the primary purpose
of these rules was typically to provide waivers of House rules for provisions in the bill. Generally, these special rules
did not otherwise structure the amending process. For further background on the use of special rules prior to the 104th
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
period covered by this report, particularly during the 111th Congress (2009-2010), regular
appropriations bills have occasionally been considered under special rules that also placed further
restrictions on the amending process.
Special rules and UCAs have also been used frequently to waive House rules that could prevent
or delay the consideration of regular appropriations bills as reported by the committee.6 These
standing rules have included both those that would prevent consideration of the measure itself and
those barring certain kinds of provisions it might contain, but the coverage of such waivers has
changed over the period studied. In earlier years, waivers of rules precluding consideration tended
to specify those rules waived, but more recent special rules have often contained a blanket waiver.
One of the most frequently waived standing rules barring specific kinds of provisions has been of
House Rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits appropriations not authorized by law and the inclusion
of “legislative” provisions.7 Such waivers may include exceptions for certain portions of the bill,
leaving those portions vulnerable to a point of order. Since the 110th Congress (2007-2008),
however, the special rules or UCAs initiating consideration have provided a blanket waiver of
Rule XXI, clause 2, in almost all instances.
This report examines the terms under which the regular appropriations bills are typically brought
up and initially considered on the House floor, as well as the practices of the House with regards
to amendment opportunities and waivers, for FY1996 to FY2012 (104th-112th Congresses). It
focuses exclusively on initial consideration of regular appropriations bills and does not address
the consideration of conference reports or amendments between the Houses. It also does not
address the few instances where an appropriations bill was first considered on the House floor
combined with one or more other appropriations bills (so-called omnibus or minibus bills).8
Similarly, this report does not cover the initial consideration of supplemental appropriations bills
or continuing appropriations measures, as such measures tend to be considered under different
terms than is typical of regular appropriations bills.9 It also does not discuss special rules prior to
the 104th Congress (1995-1996), as the structure of those rules and the floor consideration of
regular appropriations bills differed significantly from current practice. For example, regular
(...continued)
Congress, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, A History of the Committee on Rules: 1st to 97th Congresses,
committee print, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), pp. 156-159; Stanley Bach, “From Special
Orders to Special Rules: Pictures of House Procedures in Transition,” paper presented at the American Political
Science Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1990, pp. 28-29; Stanley Bach, “Representatives and
Committees on the Floor: Amendments to Appropriations Bills in the House of Representatives, 1963-1982,” Congress
and the Presidency, vol. 13, no. 1 (spring 1986), pp. 43-44.
6 See footnote 5.
7 For further information on House Rule XXI, clause 2, see CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations:
Procedural and Legal Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup and Brian T. Yeh, and CRS Report R41634, Limitations in
Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup.
8 For further information on omnibus appropriations measures, see CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations
Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
9 Supplemental appropriations bills provide funding for unforeseen needs or increase funding for programs for which
appropriations have previously been provided. Continuing appropriations measures, often referred to as “continuing
resolutions,” maintain temporary funding for agencies and programs if regular appropriations have not been enacted
before the beginning of the fiscal year. In recent years, supplemental and continuing appropriations measures have
typically been considered under structured or closed rules. See “Structuring the Consideration of Amendments Prior to
Initial Consideration” section of this report for a discussion of the types of amending processes used for the
consideration of regular appropriations bills.
Congressional Research Service
2
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
appropriations bills were often brought up using their privileged status in combination with a
special rule that waived points of order.
Examination of the practices of the House for considering regular appropriations bills shows that
consideration was sometimes further structured once it had been initiated through an additional
special rule or unanimous consent agreement. For the purposes of consistency, the data presented
in this report for each bill includes only the terms under which consideration was initiated. The
practice of further structuring those terms after consideration has begun is discussed below in the
report section, “Limiting Debate and Amendments.”
This report proceeds in three sections. The first section provides a general overview of how the
consideration of regular appropriations bills has been initiated between FY1996 and FY2012. The
second section discusses the floor consideration of amendments to regular appropriations bills
and the types of amending processes that have been established at the beginning of consideration.
The third section discusses waivers of points of order both against consideration and of Rule XXI,
clause 2, and how the form of those waivers has evolved during this period.
Initiating Consideration of Regular Appropriations
Bills in the House
For the FY1996 to FY2012 regular appropriations bills, the frequency of each method through
which floor consideration was initiated is illustrated in Table 1. During the earlier part of this
period, all of the regular appropriations bills received floor consideration in all but one fiscal year.
Since FY2003 appropriations cycle, however, all regular appropriations bills received floor
consideration in only four fiscal years, most recently for FY2010. Over the entire period, special
rules were used to initiate consideration of regular appropriations bills in almost all instances.
Unanimous consent agreements and consideration as privileged measures were also used on some
occasions, in five of the 19 fiscal years during this period.
Consideration as Privileged
House Rule XIII, clause 5, allows a regular appropriations bill to be brought to the floor for
consideration by a privileged motion to proceed to its consideration after it has been reported by
the Appropriations Committee, and certain other reporting and layover conditions have been
satisfied.10 Such a motion may not be debated, so that initiating consideration in this matter
requires only as much floor time as is necessary to agree to the motion.11 Consideration of a
10 Clause 4(a)(1) of Rule XIII generally prohibits a measure from being considered until the third calendar day on
which a committee report is available, with some exceptions. Clause 2(l) of Rule XI requires that members of the
committee reporting the bill, upon request, be given two additional days to file supplemental, minority, or additional
views to be included in the report. Clause 4(c) of Rule XIII requires that printed hearings on general appropriations
bills be available for three days prior to being considered in the House.
11 By precedent, the motion may not be amended, debated, laid on the table, or infinitely postponed. Rules of the House
of Representatives, in House Manual, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H.Doc. 111-157, 111th Cong., 2nd sess.,
[compiled by] John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2011), (hereafter House Manual), §856, p. 647.
For regular appropriations bills, such a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of the bill
typically has been agreed to by unanimous consent or voice vote.
Congressional Research Service
3
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
regular appropriations bill under its privileged status does not, however, provide a mechanism for
House rules to be waived or altered to structure the debate and amending process. Thus, the
legislative process in the standing rules of the House governs, unless superseded by unanimous
consent or the adoption of a special rule, either prior to or after consideration has begun.
Only three regular appropriations bills were brought to the floor during this period under their
status as privileged business, two for FY1998 and one for FY2004 (see Table 1). In all other
instances, the House first agreed to the terms of consideration, and then brought the bill to the
floor.
Table 1. Regular Appropriations Bills and Methods of Initial Consideration
Number
Number
Initially
Number of
Number
Number
Initially
Considered
Regular
Receiving
Initially
Considered
by
Fiscal Appropriations
Initial Floor
Considered
by Special
Unanimous
Congress Year
Billsa
Considerationg
as Privileged
Rule
Consent
104 1996
13
13
13
1997 13
13
12
1b
105 1998
13
13
2
9
2c
1999 13
13
13
106 2000
13
12
12
2001 13
13
13
107 2002
13
13
11
2d
2003 13
5
5
108 2004
13
13
1
9
3e
2005 13
12
12
109 2006
11
11
11
2007 11
10
10
110 2008
12
12
10
2f
2009 12
1
1
111 2010
12
12
12
2011 12
2
2
112 2012
12
7
7
Source: Prepared by CRS using data obtained from the Legislative Information System (available at
http://www.congress.gov) and the Congressional Record.
a. Between the 104th and 108th Congresses, the 13 House Appropriations subcommittees were
responsible for one regular appropriations bill each. During the 109th Congress, due to subcommittee
realignment, the total number of regular appropriations bills was reduced to 11 annually. Beginning in
the 110th Congress, subcommittee jurisdictions were again realigned for a total of 12 subcommittees,
each of which is currently responsible for a single regular appropriations bill. For further information
on subcommittee realignment during this period, see CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations
Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920 to 2011, by Jessica Tollestrup.
Congressional Research Service
4
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
b. UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 3845 (104th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 142, part 13 (July 18, 1996), p. H7907.
c. UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2159 (105th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 143, part 11 (July 24, 1997), p. H5750; UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2264 (105th
Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, part 12 (July 31, 1997), p. H6667.
d. UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2904 (107th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 147, part 12 (September 21, 2001), p. H5867; UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 3061
(107th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, part 14 (October 11, 2001),
p. H6568.
e. UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2658 (108th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 149, part 12 (June 26, 2003), p. H5992; UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2754 (108th
Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, part 14 (July 17, 2003), p. H7106;
UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2765 (108th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 149, part 14 (July 25, 2003), p. H7771.
f.
UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2642 (110th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 153, part 11 (June 15, 2007), p. H6518; UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 3222 (110th
Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, part 17 (August 4, 2007), p. H
9952.
g. Bills receiving initial floor consideration do not include the few instances where a regular
appropriations bill was first considered on the House floor in a legislative vehicle that combined two
or more regular appropriations bills (so-cal ed omnibus or minibus bills). For further information, see
CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
Special Rules
Special rules can be used to regulate the consideration of regular appropriations bills in several
important respects. First, special rules can provide waivers for any parts of the measure that might
otherwise violate House rules and prevent the measure’s consideration. In addition, special rules
may structure the terms of consideration by specifying the length of time the measure will be
considered, the amount and type of debate that will be allowed, and any amendments that might
be eligible for consideration. 12 The amendment process may be further affected by a special rule
that grants waivers to permit amendments to be considered that would otherwise not be in order
under House rules.13
In current practice, the process of considering a regular appropriations bill on the House floor
typically begins with the consideration of a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
Once the committee reports the rule in the form of a simple resolution, it is considered on the
House floor14 under the “hour rule,” pursuant to which one hour of debate is managed by the
majority party Member of the Rules Committee who called up the rule.15 Customarily, the
12 See also Special Rules and Options for Regulating the Amending Process, by Megan Suzanne Lynch.
13 A special rule can also allow the House to initiate consideration by conferring privilege on a measure that does not
otherwise possess it. Because regular appropriations bills are privileged under House Rule XIII, clause 5, this function
is not relevant to their consideration. For further information on how special rules can be used to confer privilege on
other measures, see CRS Report 98-354, How Special Rules Regulate Calling up Measures for Consideration in the
House, by Richard S. Beth.
14 Under Rule XIII clause 6, a special rule is generally eligible for floor consideration at any time starting from the
legislative day after it has been reported to the House. A two-thirds vote is required to consider a special rule on the
same legislative day that it is reported. For further information, see CRS Report RS22015, Availability of Legislative
Measures in the House of Representatives (The “Three-Day Rule”), by Elizabeth Rybicki.
15 For further information on the hour rule, see CRS Report 98-427, Considering Measures in the House Under the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
majority floor manager yields one-half of this time to a minority member of the Rules Committee
for the purposes of debate only. During this hour of debate, the rule may be amended only by (or
with the consent of) the majority floor manager, and typically no amendments are offered.16 At
the end of the hour of debate, the floor manager moves the previous question to prevent further
debate and any amendments from being offered. If the previous question is ordered by an
affirmative vote of a simple majority, the House proceeds to a final vote on the special rule.17
Special rules are almost always approved by the House.
For FY1996 to FY2012, special rules were used to initiate consideration of 162 out of 175 regular
appropriations bills (see Table 1). Special rules were the only method by which consideration was
initiated for 12 of 17 fiscal years, including the four most recent fiscal years (FY2009-FY2012).
Although alternative methods have been used periodically, special rules have been used over half
the time for each fiscal year during this period.
Unanimous Consent Agreements
Like special rules, UCAs may be used to bring up a measure, waive any points of order against it,
and structure the terms of its consideration. Unlike special rules, however, such agreements are
orally propounded on the floor by a Member and entered into if no Member objects on the floor at
that time.18 Consequently, initiating consideration through a UCA may be advantageous because
it requires little floor time when compared to a special rule. The ability of a single Member to
prevent such agreement by objecting, however, may preclude the use of a UCA in some
circumstances.
UCAs were used to initiate consideration of regular appropriations bills for FY1996 to FY2012 in
10 instances during five fiscal years (see Table 1). The frequency with which UCAs were used
ranged from once for FY1997, to three times for FY2004. Most recently, UCAs were used to
initiate consideration twice for FY2008.
Amending Regular Appropriations Bills in the
House
When a regular appropriations bill is considered as a privileged measure, this procedure generally
permits consideration of any amendments to the bill that comply with the rules of the House
(called an “open” amending process). Providing for consideration by a special rule or UCA,
however, allows this amending process to be altered. Such alterations can place preconditions on
(...continued)
One-Hour Rule, by James V. Saturno.
16 House Manual, §858, p. 651. For an example of amending a special rule providing for consideration of a regular
appropriations bill, see H.Res. 190 (106th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 145, issue 82, June 10,
1999, pp. H4095-H4106.
17 If the previous question is defeated, a second hour of debate on the special rule occurs, which is controlled by the
minority floor manager.
18 For further information on the use of UCAs for the consideration of a measure, see House Practice, chapter 54, §7,
pp. 895-896.
Congressional Research Service
6
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
the offering of amendments, directly prescribe the specific amendments that will be in order,
waive points of order against amendments, or place time limits on their consideration.
For FY1996 to FY2012, the means used for consideration of most regular appropriations bills
provided for some type of “open” amending process allowing an unrestricted number of
amendments to be offered that comply with House rules. Such processes often waived points of
order against certain amendments, and, less frequently, required that amendments be preprinted in
the Congressional Record in advance of consideration. An exception to this has been the
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. On all but one occasion during this period, the means
used for initiating consideration of Legislative Branch bills provided for a “structured”
amendment process, which specified a list of amendments that could be offered and waiving
points of order against those amendments. Structured processes were used for other types of bills
on three occasions through the 110th Congress, and on 13 occasions during the 111th Congress. A
closed process, which allowed no amendments, was used on only one occasion, for consideration
of the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Other practices during this period have
included the imposition of time caps on consideration of the bill, sections of the bill, or
amendments.
In some cases, the House may choose to structure the amendment process subsequent to initiating
consideration, either by unanimous consent or a subsequent special rule.19
Consideration of Amendments to Regular Appropriations Bills
Under the standing rules of the House, regular appropriations measures are considered in the
Committee of the Whole under the “five-minute rule” for amendment.20 Following general
debate, the bill is read by paragraph. All amendments must be timely, meaning they may only be
offered, if in order, to the paragraph that is currently being read for amendment. Because the
House Appropriations Committee almost always reports an original bill, floor amendments
considered to that bill are to the reported text.21 The five-minute rule allows five minutes of
debate in favor and five minutes of debate against each amendment that is offered. “Pro forma
amendments,” which enable Members to speak for five minutes not allotted through the five-
minute rule, may also be offered.22 All amendments must be germane to the provision being
amended, and additional restrictions in House rules and the Congressional Budget Act23 that
apply to general appropriations bills, such as the prohibitions on unauthorized appropriations and
legislation in Rule XXI, clause 2, limit the content and timing of any amendments that may be
considered. When the amending process is concluded, the Committee of the Whole rises and
19 For further information on this practice, see CRS Report RS22711, Considering Regular Appropriations Bills on the
House Floor: Current Practice Regarding Comprehensive Unanimous Consent Agreements, by Christopher M. Davis.
20 Rule XVII clause 3 requires that appropriations bills be considered in the Committee of the Whole, which is where
the House traditionally considers amendments. For further information, see CRS Report RL32200, Debate, Motions,
and Other Actions in the Committee of the Whole, by Bill Heniff Jr. and Elizabeth Rybicki.
21 The House Appropriations Committee is one of the few House committees authorized to report original legislation.
As a result, the committee can act on a draft text and report it out of committee, at which point it becomes a numbered
bill. In contrast, when most other committees consider major legislation, they often begin with a bill as introduced and
report that bill with proposed amendments, or with one full-text substitute amendment that proposes to replace the
entire text of the bill as introduced. For further information, see CRS Report 98-267, House Committee Markup:
Reporting, by Judy Schneider.
22 For further information on pro forma amendments, see House Practice, chapter 2, § 8, p. 20.
23 Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, 2 U.S.C. 601-688.
Congressional Research Service
7
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
reports back to the House. At this stage, the House must affirm the amendments to the measure
recommended by the Committee of the Whole. The House may also vote on a motion to
recommit, if offered, with or without amendatory instructions.24 At the end of consideration, a
final vote on the measure, as amended, occurs.25
Limiting Debate and Amendments
Debate and amendment of regular appropriations bills can be time consuming. When
consideration of a regular appropriations bill is initiated as privileged, the House routinely agrees
by unanimous consent to limit general debate to one hour. 26 The standing rules of the House also
place no direct limits on the number of amendments that Members may offer. As a result,
consideration and debate on large numbers of amendments may slow the floor process. Members
may also choose to offer pro forma amendments to extend debate on the measure, moreover,
which can prolong the process even further.
In anticipation of the practices discussed above, the House often chooses to initiate consideration
of regular appropriations bills through a special rule or UCA that limits general debate. Although
the process of agreeing to special rules and UCAs differs, both afford a parallel range of options
for structuring consideration. In addition to limiting general debate, special rules and UCAs may
specify the number or type of amendments that may be offered to sections of the bill, or the entire
bill. For example, the UCA that initiated consideration of the FY2008 Military Construction
Appropriations bill limited amendments to a list of 24, plus pro forma amendments offered by the
Appropriations Committee chair and ranking member or their designees.27 Consideration can also
be limited by a special rule or UCA that places a time cap on consideration of sections of the bill
for amendment, consideration of individual amendments, or the total amount of time for
consideration. For example, H.Res. 484 (106th Congress), which provided for consideration of the
FY1999 Defense Appropriations bill, limited consideration of a particular section of the bill to
one hour.
The terms of consideration may be determined as consideration is initiated, and then further
elaborated after the amending process has begun. During the earlier part of the previous decade,
the consideration of amendments to regular appropriations bills was often initiated by a special
rule that did not limit amendments, and then structured by a UCA once consideration was
underway.28 For example, after the House took up the FY2008 State and Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill, a UCA was entered into at the end of the first day of consideration that
limited further amendments to a list of 55 and specified a time cap for debate on each
24 For further information on the motion to recommit, see CRS Report 98-383, Motions to Recommit in the House, by
Megan S. Lynch.
25 If a special rule governs consideration, the previous question on any amendments and final passage of the bill is
typically considered as ordered pursuant to the terms of the rule.
26 In the absence of such a unanimous consent agreement, general debate would proceed under the hour rule, meaning
that each Member could theoretically be recognized for one hour. For further information on general debate in the in
the Committee of the Whole, see House Practice, chapter 16, § 45, pp. 425-426.
27 House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, part 11 (June 15, 2007), p. H6518.
28 For a discussion of this practice, see CRS Report RS22711, Considering Regular Appropriations Bills on the House
Floor: Current Practice Regarding Comprehensive Unanimous Consent Agreements, by Christopher M. Davis, and
McKay, William and Charles W. Johnson, Parliament and Congress: Representation and Scrutiny in the Twenty-First
Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 284-286.
Congressional Research Service
8
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
amendment.29 This use of UCAs can enable the House to conclude the amending process in a
more predictable manner than might otherwise occur under an open rule. This practice has been
less frequent during the 110th through 112th Congresses.
As an alternative to a UCA after consideration has been initiated under an open rule, the House
can adopt a second special rule to limit the consideration of subsequent amendments. Although
additional special rules are rarely used in current practice, the House may resort to them in
instances when a UCA cannot be obtained. For example, during consideration of the FY2010
Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill, a second special rule was adopted (H.Res. 552,
111th Congress) that limited further amendments to a list of 23, plus up to 10 from an additional
list.30
Structuring the Consideration of Amendments Prior to Initial
Consideration
As was discussed above, special rules and UCAs may provide for consideration of amendments
to regular appropriations bills in different ways. Prior to 1973, most special rules used to initiate
consideration of regular appropriations bills tended to place no restrictions on amendments. In
other cases during this period in which they did place restrictions, they tended to preclude
amendments entirely.31 Since that time, however, special rules have been used to regulate the
amending process in a variety of ways that place some limits on amendments, but still allow them
to be offered under certain conditions. The Rules Committee has concurrently developed
additional categories to distinguish rules in this respect. These categories have varied over the
years.32 For the purposes of analytic consistency, this report divides the amendment processes
provided by special rules and UCAs into five categories relevant to House practice when taking
up regular appropriations bills.
• Regular Open allows any amendment to be offered that would be in order under the
standing rules of the House and the Budget Act.
• Open Plus makes in order one or more specified amendments by waiving House Rules
(either specifically or generally), but do not otherwise restrict the opportunities available
for amendment. This type of process may also place time caps on the consideration of
29 House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, part 12 (June 20, 2007), pp. H6818-H6819.
30 For the context surrounding the adoption of this special rule, see “Structured and Closed Amending Processes”
below. For further examples of more than one special rule governing the initial consideration of regular appropriations
bills, see H.Res. 599 (110th Cong.), H.Res. 584 (105th Cong.), H.Res. 177 (104th Cong.), and H.Res. 189 (104th Cong.).
31 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, A History of the Committee on Rules: 1st to 97th Congress, 1789-1981,
committee print, 97th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), pp. 218-219.
32 As of the date of this report, the House Rules Committee divides special rules for the consideration of all types of
measures into four different categories. Open Rules allow any amendment to be offered that does not violate the
standing rules of the House and the Budget Act. Modified Open Rules permit all floor amendments but require that they
be preprinted in the Congressional Record before being offered or place an overall time cap on their consideration.
Structured Rules generally only allow amendments to be offered that have been printed in the rule or otherwise
specified in the report accompanying the rule. Such rules typically waive points of order against the amendments
specified. Closed Rules allow no amendments to be offered except those recommended by the committee reporting the
bill and at least one motion to recommit. Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules for the First Session of
the 112th Congress, H.Rept. 112-357, pp. 26-27.
Congressional Research Service
9
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
specified amendments, or provide that no second degree amendments to those
amendments will be in order.33
• Open with a Preprinting Requirement provides that amendments to the bill must be
preprinted in the Congressional Record before being offered, but otherwise allows any
preprinted amendments that comply with House rules. No pro forma amendments to the
bill are in order when a preprinting requirement is in effect, but pro forma amendments to
the preprinted amendments are allowed, unless otherwise specified.34
• Structured specifies the amendments that may be offered to the bill or to a portion of the
bill. This form of consideration also includes processes that close part of the bill to
amendment, or limit amendments on specific topics. This process may also waive points
of order against such specified amendments, or place time caps on their consideration.35
• Closed allows no amendments to be offered and at least one motion to recommit.36
33 “Open Plus Rules” are discussed and separately designated from “Open Rules” in the House Committee on Rules
Survey of Activities: 103rd Congress, H.Rept. 103-891. Such rules are discussed, but not separately designated in the
Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules, 104th-111th Congresses, H.Rept. 104-868, H.Rept. 105-840,
H.Rept. 106-1051, H.Rept. 107-808, H.Rept. 108-814, H.Rept. 109-743, H.Rept. 110-931, H.Rept. 111-714. “Open
Plus Rules” are not discussed or designated in the Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules for the First
Session of the 112th Congress, H.Rept. 112-357.
34 The Committee on Rules’ surveys of activities have categorized rules that require that amendments be preprinted in
the Congressional Record and/or place a time cap on consideration differently over time. In the 103rd Congress, such
rules were designated as Time cap (consideration of amendments is subject to an overall time limit) or Amendments
printed in the Congressional Record (consideration is limited to only those amendments preprinted in the
Congressional Record) (H.Rept. 103-891). In the 104th-107th Congresses, such rules were designated as Modified
Open—time cap on consideration of amendments, Modified open—required preprinting in the Congressional Record,
or Modified open—both time cap on consideration of amendments, and required preprinting in the Congressional
Record (H.Rept. 104-868, H.Rept. 105-840, H.Rept. 106-1051, H.Rept. 107-808). In the 108th-109th Congresses, such
rules were designated Modified open—required preprinting in the Congressional Record, with no designation for
Modified open—time cap on consideration of amendments or Modified open—time cap on consideration of
amendments, and required preprinting in the Congressional Record (H.Rept. 109-743). In the 110th Congress, Modified
open—required preprinting in the Congressional Record were designated as Open with a Preprinting Requirement
(H.Rept. 110-931). In the 111th Congress, such rules were again designated as Modified Open (Required Amendment
Preprinting in the Congressional Record) (H.Rept. 111-714). In the 112th Congress, Modified Open rules are those with
preprinting requirement for amendments or that place an overall time limit on their consideration (H.Rept. 112-357).
35 The Committee on Rules’ surveys of activities have categorized rules that limit opportunities for Members to offer
amendments, but do not entirely prevent them, differently over time. In the 103rd Congress, such rules were designated
as Open—restricted in part (specific sections limited to one specified amendment or fewer, or amendments on certain
topics not in order), Amendments printed in the report or specified in the rule (amendments limited to those specified in
the rule or accompanying report), or modified closed (no amendments to the bill, except possibly a committee
substitute, but a motion to recommit with instructions is allowed) (H.Rept. 103-891). In the 104th-109th Congresses,
such rules were designated as structured (amendments limited to three or more specified in the rule or accompanying
report), or modified closed (amendments limited to one or two specified in the rule or accompanying report) (H.Rept.
104-868, H.Rept. 105-840, H.Rept. 106-1051, H.Rept. 107-808, H.Rept. 108-814, H.Rept. 109-743). In the 110th
Congress, such rules were designated as structured (amendments limited to any number specified in the report) only,
with no separate class for modified closed (H.Rept. 110-931). In the 111th Congress, structured and modified closed
rules were distinguished in the same way as the 104th through 109th Congresses (H.Rept. 111-714). In the 112th
Congress, such rules were again designated as structured (amendments limited to any number specified in the report)
only (H.Rept. 112-357).
36 It is not in order for a special rule to prohibit a motion to recommit. Since the 104th Congress, the form of the rule has
specifically provided that the special rule also may not prohibit the inclusion of amendatory instruction if offered by the
minority leader or a designee (CRS Report 98-383, Motions to Recommit in the House, by Megan S. Lynch). During
the period covered by this report, all special rules initiating consideration of regular appropriations bills allowed at least
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Using these categories, Table 2 presents a breakdown of the type of amending process provided
in special rules and UCAs for FY1996 to FY2012 regular appropriations bills. The few rules that
do not conform to these categories are noted in the “other” column and are discussed separately.
(...continued)
one motion to recommit.
Congressional Research Service
11
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Table 2. Amending Processes for Initial Consideration of Regular Appropriations Bills, FY1996-FY2012
Type of Amending Processa
Number of
Appropriations Bills/
Fiscal
Number Initially
Regular
Open
Open with
Congress
Year
Considereda Privileged
Open
Plus
Preprintingb Structuredc Closed Other
104 1996
13/13
4 7
1
1d
1997 13/13
8
(1)
3
1e
105 1998
13/13
2 4 3
(2)
2f
1999 13/13
5
5
1g
2h
106 2000
13/12
5 6
1
2001 13/13
9
2 1i 1
107 2002
13/13
6
(2) 3
1j 1
2003 13/5
3
1
1
108 2004
13/13
1 8
(2) (1)
1
2005 13/12
11
1
109 2006
11/11
10
1
2007 11/10
9
1
110 2008
12/12
9
1
(2)
2009 12/1
1k
111 2010
12/12
1l 11
2011 12/2
2
112 2012
12/7
6
1
Source: Prepared by CRS using data obtained from the Legislative Information System (available at http://www.congress.gov) and the Congressional Record.
Notes: Special rules are in regular text; UCAs are in parentheses.
a. Between the 104rd and 108th Congresses, the 13 House Appropriations subcommittees were responsible for one regular appropriations bill each. During the
109th Congress, due to subcommittee realignment, the total number of regular appropriations bills was effectively reduced to 11 annually. Beginning in the 110th
Congress, subcommittee jurisdictions were again realigned for a total of 12 subcommittees, each of which is currently responsible for a single regular
CRS-12
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
appropriations bill. For further information on subcommittee realignment during this period, see CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure:
History of Changes from 1920 to 2011, by Jessica Tollestrup. Bills receiving initial floor consideration do not include the few instances where a regular
appropriations bill was first considered on the House floor in a legislative vehicle that combined two or more regular appropriations bills (so-cal ed omnibus or
minibus bills). For further information, see CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
b. Special Rules designated in the accompanying committee report or House Rules activity report as a type of rule other than “open with a preprinting
requirement” are noted.
c. Special Rules designated in the accompanying committee report or House Rules activity report as a type of rule other than “structured” are noted.
d. H.Res. 252 (104th Cong.) waived points of order against the amendment printed in the committee report and placed a 10 minute limit on debate on that
amendment. It further provided that if the amendment was adopted, debate on all further amendments to the bill could not exceed 30 minutes per amendment.
This special rule was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 104-302) as a “modified open” rule.
e. H.Res. 473 (104th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 104-663) as a “modified closed” rule.
f.
H.Res. 193 and H.Res. 197 (105th Cong.) were classified in the accompanying committee reports (H.Rept. 105-197 and H.Rept. 105-202 , respectively) as
“modified closed” rules.
g. H.Res. 264 (105th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 105-315) as a “modified closed” rule.
h. H.Res. 484 (105th Cong.) provided that consideration of Section 8106 for amendment under the five-minute rule would not exceed one hour but did not
otherwise restrict the amending process; this special rule was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 105-596) as a “modified open” rule.
H.Res. 542 (105th Cong.) placed a five-hour time cap on the amending process, required amendments to be preprinted, and waived points of order against
amendments specified in the rule; this special rule was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 105-725) as a “modified open” rule.
i.
H.Res. 563 (106th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 106-790) as a “modified open” rule.
j.
H.Res. 199 (107th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 107-146) as a “modified open” rule.
k. H.Res. 1384 (110th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 110-800) as an “open rule with a pre-printing requirement.”
l.
H.Res. 544 (111th Cong.) was classified in the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 111-155) as “open rule with a pre-printing requirement.”
CRS-13
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Open Amending Processes
For regular appropriations bills for FY1996 to FY2012, 80.8% of special rules and UCAs that
initiated consideration provided some type of open amending process. In addition, some type of
open process was used the majority of the time for each fiscal year during this period, except
during the 111th Congress (2009-2010).
The type of open amending process varied. In total, 73.4% of open processes were “regular open”
and allowed any amendment to be offered that was in order under the standing rules of the House
and the Budget Act. In addition, 23.7% were “open plus” and made one or more specified
amendments in order. Open plus rules and UCAs were used frequently during the earlier part of
this period; for FY1996 to FY2000, “open plus” processes were used to initiate consideration for
41.9% of regular appropriations bills. The frequency of this approach subsequently declined for
consideration of the FY2001 to FY2004 bills; no open plus amending processes have been used
to initiate consideration of regular appropriations bills since that time.
The open plus processes used during this period, at a minimum, regulated consideration by
waiving points of order against one or more specified amendments. Although seven amendments
were provided waivers on one occasion, open plus processes typically waived points of order
against only one or two amendments.37 Most of these processes also included time caps on the
debate of such amendments. For example, H.Res. 245 (107th Congress), the special rule initiating
consideration of the FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations bill (H.R. 2944, 107th
Congress), provided that an amendment specified in the report would be debatable only for ten
minutes. Some of these open plus processes also protected the amendments specified in the report
from being amended on the floor by second degree amendments.38 For example, H.Res. 263
(106th Congress), the special rule initiating consideration of the FY2000 Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2606, 107th Congress),
stipulated that the amendments printed in the report would “not be subject to amendment.”
Effectively, this meant that while Members could generally offer amendments to the bill that
complied with House rules, they could only give an up or down vote to those specified
amendments.
Clause 8(b) of Rule XVIII provides procedures for amendments to be submitted to the
Congressional Record for printing prior to consideration.39 Generally, however, the practice of
requiring amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional Record before being offered has
been rare for FY1996 to FY2012. Only four special rules and no UCAs initiating consideration of
regular appropriations bills contained such provisions, most recently for consideration of a
FY2010 measure. In all four of these instances, the special rule explicitly allowed pro forma
amendments.
37 H.Res. 170 (104th Cong.).
38 In the House, amendments are distinguished by degree. First degree amendments propose to change the text of the
measure under consideration. Second degree amendments propose to change the text of a pending first degree
amendment to that measure. For further information, see CRS Report 98-613, Amendments in the House: Types and
Forms, by Christopher M. Davis.
39 For further information on Rule XVIII, clause 8(b), see CRS Report 98-995, The Amending Process in the House of
Representatives, by Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
1
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Structured and Closed Amending Processes
Structured and closed amendment processes for the FY1996 to FY2012 regular appropriations
bills have been implemented at the time consideration was initiated almost entirely through
special rules. Structured UCAs were used on only two occasions.
The structured rules and UCAs during this period have been largely consistent with regard to time
caps and waivers for the consideration of amendments. All structured rules and UCAs have
placed time caps on the consideration of each amendment. In addition, all structured rules, but
none of the UCAs, have waived points of order against the allowed amendments.
The primary use of structured and closed rules during this period has been to initiate
consideration of the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, with some exceptions. In all but one
instance that the Legislative Branch bill was initially considered in the House, it was considered
under a structured rule. In addition, the one closed rule during this period initiated consideration
of the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. In general, the number of amendments to
Legislative Branch bills that were allowed by structured rules increased during the 112th
Congress. Prior to this time, the number of amendments allowed ranged between 1 and 12, with
an average of about four per rule. The rule for the consideration of the FY2012 Legislative
Branch Appropriations bill (H.Res. 359, 112th Congress) allowed a list of 16 amendments.
In recent Congresses, the use of structured rules to provide for the consideration of regular
appropriations bills has been the subject of some controversy. In particular, the use of structured
rules to initiate consideration of all but one such bill during the 111th Congress, rather than an
open rule supplemented by an amendment roster included in a subsequent UCA, as had generally
been the practice of the House.40 Prior to this time, a structured rule was used to initiate
consideration of an appropriations measure other than a Legislative Branch bill on only one
occasion, the FY1998 District of Columbia Appropriations bill (H.Res. 264, 105th Congress).
More recently, structured UCAs were used on two occasions, to initiate consideration for the
FY2008 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3222, 110th Congress) and the FY2008 Military
Construction/Veteran’s Affairs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2642, 110th Congress).
The use of structured rules during the 111th Congress began with the consideration of the FY2010
Commerce/Justice/Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 2847). The House initiated consideration
under H.Res. 544 (111th Congress), an open rule that required amendments to be preprinted in the
Congressional Record prior to a specified deadline and allowed an unlimited number of pro
forma amendments. More than 100 amendments were prefiled before the deadline in the rule, and
the House was unable to agree to a UCA further structuring consideration two days after that
deadline. Instead, the House passed a second special rule, H.Res. 552 (111th Congress), that
limited consideration to a list of 23 amendments, plus up to an additional 10 amendments. The
special rule imposed a time cap of 10 minutes of debate per amendment and waived points of
order against the listed amendments.41 Proponents of these and subsequent structured rules during
40 House Committee on Rules Majority Staff, “Open Rules By The Numbers,” June 1, 2011,
http://www.rules.house.gov/News/BlogArticle.aspx?NewsID=327 (most recently accessed May 1, 2012), Rep. Louis
Slaughter and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, part 91 (June 17,
2009), pp. H6910-H6911.
41 For further background on these events, see, Paul M. Krawzak, “Republican Amendments Pile Up, Threatening to
Slow Spending Bills’ Progress,” CQ Today Print Edition, June 16, 2009; Keith Perine, C-J-S Spending Debate
Dissolves into Partisan Fight; Restrictive Rule Sought,” CQ Today Online News, June 17, 2009; Edward Epstein and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
the 111th Congress argued that they were a necessary response to the number of amendments
prefiled to assure that appropriations could be completed in a timely manner.42 Others claimed
that structured rules on appropriations bills undermine the ability of Members to influence the
content of bills and represent their constituents by offering amendments.43
In general, the number of amendments allowed by structured rules initiating consideration for
appropriations measures other than Legislative Branch bills has increased in recent years. While
only two amendments were allowed for the FY1998 District of Columbia Appropriations bill, the
UCAs initiating consideration for the FY2008 Defense and Military Construction/Veteran’s
Affairs bills allowed 18 and 24 amendments, respectively. The structured rules for consideration
of appropriations measures other than Legislative Branch bills during the 111th Congress allowed
a range of five to 24 amendments, with an average of about 13 per rule.
There were no structured rules for the consideration of appropriations measures other than
legislative branch bills in the 112th Congress.
Other Amending Processes
Three special rules for initiating consideration of regular appropriations bills were not aligned
with the categories discussed in the previous sections.
H.Res. 252 (104th Congress), the special rule for consideration of the FY1996 District of
Columbia Appropriations bill (H.R. 2546), contained elements of an open plus amending process,
with some exceptions. It provided that the amendment printed in the committee report (H.Rept.
104-302) be considered prior to any other amendment, waived all points of order against that
amendment, prohibited any second degree amendments to that amendment, and placed a 10
minute time cap on debate of that amendment. In addition, if that amendment were adopted,
debate on each further amendment to the bill and any second degree amendments thereto would
be limited to 30 minutes. The rule also waived points of order against four other amendments, and
specified that they could not be not subject to any second degree amendments.
H.Res. 484 (105th Congress), the special rule for consideration of the FY1999 Department of
Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 4103), contained elements of a regular open rule, but imposed
a one-hour time cap on the amendment process for Section 8106.44
(...continued)
Paul M. Krawzak, “Chaos on House Floor as 53 Votes Taken, Democrats Threaten Clampdowns,” CQ Today Print
Edition, June 18, 2009.
42 Rep. Norman Dicks, House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (June 25, 2009), p. H7393;
Edward Epstein and Paul M. Krawzak, “Week of Procedural Bickering Foreshadows Future Spending Fights,” CQ
Today Print Edition, June 19, 2009. Edward Epstein, “GOP Forces Procedural Votes to Protest Rules on
Appropriations,” CQ Today Online News, June 24, 2009.
43 Rep. David Dreier, House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (June 24, 2009), pp. H7168-H7170.
Don Wolfensberger, “Appropriations Bills Face New Twists And Old Realities,” Roll Call, June 23, 2009. Edward
Epstein, “GOP Forces Procedural Votes to Protest Rules on Appropriations,” CQ Today Online News, June 24, 2009.
44 H.R. 4103, Section 8106, provided: “No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
initiate or conduct offensive military operations by United States Armed Forces except in accordance with the war
powers clause of the Constitution (article 1, section 8), which vests in Congress the power to declare and authorize war
and to take certain specified, related decisions.”
Congressional Research Service
3
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
H.Res. 542 (105th Congress), the special rule for consideration of the FY1999 Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs appropriations bill (H.R. 4569), contained
elements of both open plus and open with preprinting. The rule waived points of order against
five amendments printed in the committee report (H.Rept. 105-725), specified a debate limit for
each amendment, and provided that three of these amendments would not be subject to second
degree amendments. It also required that all other amendments to the bill be preprinted in the
Congressional Record, but allowed pro forma amendments. Finally, the rule provided that the
amendment process for this bill be limited to five hours.
Waiving House Rules Prior to Consideration of
Regular Appropriations Bills
The standing rules of the House place certain restrictions on when a measure is eligible for
consideration and what content may be considered. Specifically, House rules may require that a
measure only be brought to the floor during certain time periods, or after certain conditions have
been satisfied. In addition, rules may also restrict the content of measures, so that certain types of
matters cannot be considered, or must be considered in certain types of legislative vehicles. These
rules are enforced on the floor through points of order and are in effect when consideration of a
measure is initiated through privilege, and also (unless altered) by a special rule or UCA.45
The House sometimes chooses to “waive” or set aside its standing rules or restrictions in the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, 2 U.S.C. 601-688) during the
consideration of certain measures though a special rule or UCA. This is because these rules could
potentially prevent the House from taking up legislation that it wishes to consider, or require it to
be considered in a less preferable form. In setting aside these rules, the House can choose to
waive only specific rules, or waive broad categories of rules. The House can also choose to waive
rules only for specified provisions in the measure, or waive them for the entire measure.
Alternatively, waivers of rules can also be framed as covering the entire measure excepting
specified provisions, which would consequently remain vulnerable to a point of order.
House rule waivers provided through special rules and UCAs prior to initial consideration of
regular appropriations bills for FY1996 to FY2012 are illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4. During
this period, the practice of providing broad waivers for “points of order against consideration”
evolved—from providing no waivers, or only waivers for specific rules, to providing blanket
waivers of all points of order against consideration, or blanket waivers with exceptions. This
change in procedural practice, however, does not necessarily reflect changes in the content of the
bills. The practice of providing waivers for Rule XXI, clause 2, with exceptions for specified
language in the bill increased during this period, until the FY2008 regular appropriations bills.
For the FY2008 to FY2011 bills, only waivers that covered the entire measure were used. Most
recently, a waiver with specified exceptions was provided on one occasion in the112th Congress,
for a FY2012 measure.
45 For further information on the enforcement of House Rules through points of order, see CRS Report 98-307, Points
of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Valerie Heitshusen.
Congressional Research Service
4
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Consideration Waivers
When a bill is subject to a point of order against its consideration, House action on the bill
requires that a waiver be granted, because if such a point of order is raised from the floor and
sustained by the chair, the House will be unable to take the bill up for consideration. As
previously mentioned, special rules initiating consideration for regular appropriations bills have
often included provisions that waive points of order against consideration stemming from
restrictions in specific House rules or the Congressional Budget Act. For example, H.Res. 213
(107th Congress), which provided for consideration of the FY2002 Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill, contained the following provision: “Points of order against consideration of
the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(c) of rule XIII are waived.”46
During this period, special rules providing for consideration of regular appropriations bills have
also included provisions that provided a blanket waiver of points of order against consideration of
the bill. For example, H.Res. 300 (112th Congress), which provided for consideration of the
FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, contained the following provision: “All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived.”
Such provisions have the effect of waiving all points of order that would prevent the bill from
being taken up by the House.47
Broad waivers of points of order provided by special rules are typically addressed in the
accompanying committee report, as required under Rule XIII clause 6(g).48 In instances where a
special rule contains a general waiver of points of order against consideration, the committee
report accompanying the rule often identifies specific sections of House rules that would be
violated by the bill’s consideration.49 In other instances, the committee report indicates that the
waiver provided is “prophylactic,” in that the consideration of the bill is not believed to violate
House rules, but the waiver is included in the event that it does.50 Unanimous consent agreements
that initiate consideration may similarly provide waivers of points of order against consideration
in any of the forms discussed above.
Table 3 contains a breakdown of the special rules and UCAs initiating consideration of regular
appropriations bills that provided a blanket waiver of all points of order against consideration,
waived all such points of order with exceptions, waived specific points of order of this kind, or
had no waiver. During this period, special rules and UCAs have trended in a similar direction
with respect to the form of waiver provided. Prior to the FY2001 bills, waivers tended to be for
specific points of order against consideration, or not to be provided at all. Waivers of all points of
order were the least common when initiating consideration of regular appropriations bills. Since
46 Rule XIII clause 4(c) requires that printed hearings on a general appropriations bill be available for three days prior
to House consideration of the bill.
47For example, Rule XIII clause 4(a)(1) of generally prohibits measures from being considered until the third calendar
day on which a committee report is available, with some exceptions. Rule XI clause 2(l) requires that members of the
committee reporting the bill upon giving notice of their intent to do so, be given two days to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views to be included in the report.
48 Rule XIII clause 6(g) requires the report specify to the maximum extent possible “the object of any waiver of a point
of order against the measure or against its consideration.”
49 For example, see H.Rept. 112-103, which accompanied H.Res. 300 (112th Cong.), p. 1.
50 For example, see H.Rept. 112-176, which accompanied H.Res. 363 (112th Cong.), p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
5
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
the FY2001 bills, however, waivers of all points of order against consideration have generally
predominated, with the bills for FY2004 being the most recent for which a special rule or UCA
provided either a specific waiver or none at all.
Table 3. Waivers of Points of Order Against Consideration for Regular
Appropriations Bills, FY1996-FY2012
Number of
Consideration Waiversa
Appropriations
Bills/Number
Initially
Congress Fiscal
Year Considereda
Privileged
All Exceptionsb Specific None
104 1996
13/13
1
4 8
1997
13/13
(1)
11
1
105
1998
13/13
2
1 (1)
5 (1)
3
1999
13/13
11
2
106 2000
13/12
4
6 2
2001
13/13
11
2
107 2002
13/13
10
(2)
1
2003
13/5
5
108 2004
13/13 1
8
(3)
1
2005
13/12
12
109 2006
11/11
11
2007
11/10
10
110 2008
12/12
10
(2)
2009 12/1
1
111 2010
12/12
12
2011 12/2
2
112 2012
12/7
7
Source: Prepared by CRS using data obtained from the Legislative Information System (available at
http://www.congress.gov) and the Congressional Record.
Notes: Special rules are in regular text; UCAs are in parentheses.
a. Between the 104th and 108th Congresses, the 13 House Appropriations subcommittees were responsible
for one regular appropriations bill each. During the 109th Congress, due to subcommittee realignment, the
total number of regular appropriations bills was effectively reduced to annual y. Beginning in the 110th
Congress, subcommittee jurisdictions were again realigned for a total of 12 subcommittees, each of which is
currently responsible for a single regular appropriations bill. For further information on subcommittee
realignment during this period, see CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of
Changes from 1920 to 2011, by Jessica Tollestrup. Bills receiving initial floor consideration do not include the
few instances where a regular appropriations bill was first considered on the House floor in a legislative
vehicle that combined two or more regular appropriations bills (so-called omnibus or minibus bills). For
further information, see CRS Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by
Jessica Tol estrup.
b. During the 110th and 111th Congresses, the waiver of all points of order against consideration provided in
special rules included an exception for Rule XXI, clause 9 and 10. The UCA initiating consideration for H.R.
2642 (110th Cong.) included an exception for the same provisions; the UCA initiating consideration for H.R.
Congressional Research Service
6
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
3222 (110th Cong.) included an exception for only Rule XXI, clause 10. For an explanation of these clauses,
see pp. 18-19 of this report.
During the 110th and 111th Congresses, the waiver of points of order against consideration
provided in special rules initiating consideration of regular appropriations bills contained an
exception for Rule XXI, clauses 9 and 10. Such exceptions were typically included in all special
rules that waived points of order against consideration during this period. The two UCAs
initiating consideration of regular appropriations bills followed a similar pattern. One included an
exception to the waiver of all points of order against consideration for both of these clauses;51 the
other included an exception for Rule XXI, clause 10.52
Clauses 9 and 10 were added to Rule XXI at the beginning of the 110th Congress. Clause 9
provides requirements related to earmark disclosure in the committee report accompanying a
regular appropriations bill, and a point of order may be raised against any special rule that waives
clause 9.53 In instances where such a point of order is raised, the House votes on that waiver
through a question of consideration.54 Clause 10 contained the PAYGO point of order against
direct spending and revenue legislation. Because regular appropriations bills primarily involve
discretionary spending, it would be unusual for a point of order under clause 10, to be raised
during consideration, even if allowed.55
No points of order were raised pursuant to clause 9 or 10 when the regular appropriations bills
were initially brought to the floor during the 110th and 111th Congresses. In the 112th Congress,
the practice returned to providing a blanket waiver of all points of order against consideration in
the special rule; no points of order under clause 9 were raised against these rules.
Rule XXI, Clause 2 Waivers
In addition to waiving points of order against consideration, special rules and UCAs initiating
consideration of regular appropriations bills have often waived House Rule XXI, clause 2,56
which prohibits general appropriations bills from including provisions “changing existing law.”
Such provisions, for example, impose new duties upon the recipient of funds, change agency
51 UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 2642 (110th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record (daily edition), vol.
153, part 11 (June 15, 2007), p. H6518.
52 UCA initiated consideration for H.R. 3222 (110th Cong.), House debate, Congressional Record (daily edition), vol.
153, part 17 (August 4, 2007), p. H9952.
53 For further information on House rules related to earmark disclosure, see CRS Report RS22866, Earmark Disclosure
Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements, by Megan S. Lynch.
54 For further information on the point of order and question of consideration provided by Rule XXI, clause 9, see
Rules of the House of Representatives, in House Manual, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H.Doc. 111-157, 111th
Cong., 2nd sess., [compiled by] John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2011), (hereafter, House
Manual) §1068d, pp. 896-897.
55 For further information about the House PAYGO rule during the 110th and 111th Congresses, see CRS Report
R41510, Budget Enforcement Procedures: House Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule, by Bill Heniff Jr. In the 112th
Congress, the rule was modified to become the current CUTGO, or cut-as-you-go, rule to prohibit the consideration of
any legislation that would have the net effect of increasing direct spending over six-year and 11-year time periods. For
further information, see CRS Report R41926, House Rules Changes Affecting the Congressional Budget Process Made
at the Beginning of the 112th Congress, by Bill Heniff Jr.
56 During the period covered by this report, waivers for provisions in the bill have been periodically provided for other
House rules, such as Rule XXI, clause 5 and 6. Such waivers have been provided only intermittently and are not
addressed by this report.
Congressional Research Service
7
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
discretion, or mandate action contrary to existing law.57 Clause 2 also prohibits appropriations for
programs, projects, or activities “not previously authorized by law.”58 This rule stems from the
principle that the process through which the activities of government are chosen should be
distinct from the process through which those activities are funded. Points of order under Rule
XXI, clause 2, may be raised against any portion of the bill during consideration. If such a point
of order is raised and sustained, the entire portion is stricken and consideration of the bill may
continue.59
Since the FY1996 regular appropriations bills, almost all waivers of Rule XXI, clause 2 for
provisions in the bill have taken one of two forms. First, some of these waivers have covered the
entire measure. For example, H.Res. 320 (112th Congress), which provided for consideration of
the FY2012 Defense appropriations bill, contained the following provision: “Points of order
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.”
Second, waivers of Rule XXI, clause 2 have specified provisions that are excepted from the
blanket waiver and thereby left unprotected. For example, H.Res. 836, which provided for
consideration of the FY2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill, included the following
provision:
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI
are waived except: beginning with the comma on page 38, line 11 through ‘funds’ on line 14;
section 512; beginning with ‘or’ on page 54, line 12 through ‘appropriation’ on line 13; and
section 536.
Alternately, a waiver of Rule XXI, clause 2 might only apply to specific provisions, but still leave
other provisions unprotected.
In many instances, the Rules Committee chooses to provide waivers with exceptions (or waivers
for only specific provisions) because the authorizing committee of jurisdiction objects to the
inclusion of a particular legislative provision or unauthorized appropriation.60 This practice has
generally been recognized as the “Armey Protocol” since the 104th Congress.61 Under this
protocol, a provision that would potentially be out of order under Rule XXI, clause 2 is left
unprotected and could be subject to a point of order on the floor.62 If such a point of order against
57 For further information on provisions changing existing law, also known as “legislation on appropriations,” see CRS
Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup.
58 For further information on appropriations not previously authorized by law, see CRS Report R42098, Authorization
of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup and Brian T. Yeh.
59 House Practice, chapter 4, §7, p. 77-78.
60 House Committee on Rules, “Open Rules and Appropriations Bills,” October 13, 2011, available at
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/NewSite/Boot%20Camp/mkcBT%20-%20Open%20Rules913b.pdf (accessed on May
1, 2012).
61 Ibid.; for further information on the Armey Protocol, see Oleszek, Walter, Congressional Procedures and the Policy
Process (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007), 7th ed., pp. 134-135. Because this protocol is not a formal part of House
rules, it is not possible to compile data on its use or impact.
62 In most legislative situations, it is more typical that measures, rather than specific provisions, are subject to a point of
order, so that, if successful, the point of order would cause the measure to be removed from floor consideration and
recommitted to its committee of origin. For further information, see CRS Report 98-307, Points of Order, Rulings, and
Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Valerie Heitshusen. For an example of points of order being raised and
sustained against unprotected provisions in a regular appropriations bill, see the consideration of H.R. 5025, House
debate, Congressional Record (daily edition), vol. 150, issue 109, September 14, 2004, pp. H7126-H7136; H7139-H
7177.
Congressional Research Service
8
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
that provision were raised and sustained, the provision would be stricken and consideration of the
bill would continue.63
Table 4 displays a breakdown of the number of special rules and UCAs initiating consideration of
regular appropriations bills that provided a blanket waiver of Rule XXI, clause 2, a blanket
waiver with exceptions, a waiver for only specific provisions, or no waiver. Almost all bills were
provided some type of Rule XXI, clause 2 waiver at the time consideration was initiated; in only
one instance was no waiver of clause 2 provided when consideration was initiated through a
special rule or UCA. In this instance (H.Res. 770, 108th Congress), points of order were raised
and sustained during subsequent consideration of the bill.64 Similarly, in the one instance where a
waiver of clause 2 was provided for only a specified provision in the bill (H.Res. 498, 105th
Congress), points of order were raised and sustained against other provisions when the bill was
considered.
Table 4. Rule XXI, Clause 2 Waivers for Initial Consideration for Regular
Appropriations Bills, FY1996-FY2012
Number of
Rule XXI, Clause 2 Waiversa
Appropriations
Bills/Number
Fiscal
Initially
Entire
Congress
Year
Considereda Privileged
Billb Exceptions Specific None
104 1996
13/13
10
3
1997 13/13
7
(1) 5
105 1998
13/13
2 6 3
(2)
1999 13/13
6 6 1
106 2000
13/12
7
5
2001 13/13
4 9
107 2002
13/13
4
(2) 7
2003 13/5
2 3
108
2004
13/13
1
2 (1)
7 (2)
2005 13/12
2 9 1
109 2006
11/11
3
8
2007 11/10
2 8
110 2008
12/12
10
(2)
2009 12/1
1
111 2010
12/12
12
2011 12/2
2
112 2012
12/7
5
2
63 House Manual, §1044, p. 850.
64 See the consideration of H.R. 5025 (109th Cong.), Congressional Record (daily edition), vol. 151, part 15 (September
14, 2005), pp. H.R. 17136.
Congressional Research Service
9
Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and Amendment
Source: Prepared by CRS using data obtained from the Legislative Information System (available at
http://www.congress.gov) and the Congressional Record.
Notes: Special rules are in regular text; UCAs are in parentheses.
a. Between the 104th and 108th Congresses, the 13 House Appropriations subcommittees were
responsible for one regular appropriations bill each. During the 109th Congress, due to subcommittee
realignment, the total number of regular appropriations bills was effectively reduced to 11 annually.
Beginning in the 110th Congress, subcommittee jurisdictions were again realigned for a total of 12
subcommittees, each of which is currently responsible for a single regular appropriations bill. For
further information on subcommittee realignment during this period, see CRS Report RL31572,
Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920 to 2011, by Jessica Tollestrup. Bills
receiving initial floor consideration do not include the few instances where a regular appropriations
bill was first considered on the House floor in a legislative vehicle that combined two or more
regular appropriations bills (so-called omnibus or minibus bills). For further information, see CRS
Report RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
b. On three occasions, the waiver of Rule XXI clause 2 that applied to the entire bill was provided
through a UCA that waived all points of order against the bill; these UCAs initiated consideration for
H.R. 3845 (104th Cong.), H.R. 2904 (107th Cong.), and H.R. 3061 (107th Cong.).
For both blanket waivers of Rule XXI, clause 2, and waivers with exceptions, special rules and
UCAs have trended in a similar direction in the form of waiver provided. For all but four of the
fiscal years between FY1996 and FY2007, at least half of the Rule XXI clause 2 waivers had
specified exceptions, allowing those provisions to be stricken by a point of order during
subsequent consideration. For the bills between FY2008 and FY2011, however, waivers included
no exceptions, and so protection against such points of order was provided for the entire measure.
Most recently, for consideration the FY2012 bills, a waiver with exceptions was provided on two
occasions, for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 2017) and the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill (H.R. 2112).65
Author Contact Information
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
jtollestrup@crs.loc.gov, 7-0941
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful for the assistance of Elizabeth Rybicki, Richard Beth, Christopher Davis, and the
Office of the House Parliamentarian.
65 H.Res. 287 and H.Res. 300 (112th Cong.), respectively.
Congressional Research Service
10