The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))




The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause
2(b))

Updated January 10, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44736




The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

Summary
Although congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions
of policy are kept separate from questions of funding, House rules provide for exceptions in
certain circumstances. One such circumstance allows for the inclusion of legislative language in
general appropriations bills or amendments thereto for “germane provisions that retrench
expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill.” This exception appears
in clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI and is known as the Holman rule, after Representative William
Holman of Indiana, who first proposed the exception in 1876.
Since the period immediately after its initial adoption, the House has interpreted the Holman rule
through precedents that have tended incrementally to narrow its application. Under current
precedents, for a legislative provision or amendment to be in order, the legislative language in
question must be both germane to other provisions in the measure and must produce a clear
reduction of appropriations in that bill.
In addition, the House adopted a separate order during the 115th Congress that provided for
retrenchments of expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill to be
construed as applying to:
any provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by—
(1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill;
(2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or
(3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United
States.
This separate order was not readopted for the 116th or 117th Congresses but was again adopted in
identical form as a separate order as part of the rules for the 118th Congress.
This report provides a history of this provision in House rules and an analysis of precedents that
are illustrative of its possible application.


Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 9 The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Development of the Holman Rule ................................................................................................... 2
Application ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Separate Order in the 115th and 118th Congresses ........................................................................... 4

Contacts
Author Information .......................................................................................................................... 6

Congressional Research Service

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

Background
Congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy
are kept separate from questions of funding. Broadly, the term authorization is used to describe
legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies the organization or activities of a federal entity
or program. By itself, such legislation does not provide funding for such purposes. Instead, the
authority to obligate payments from the Treasury is left to separate appropriations measures.
This distinction between appropriations and general legislation as two separate classes of
measures, and their consideration in separate legislative vehicles, is a construct of congressional
rules and practices. It has been developed and formalized by the House and Senate pursuant to the
constitutional authority for each chamber to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”1 This
power permits each chamber of Congress to enforce, modify, waive, repeal, or ignore its rules as
it sees fit. Because the two chambers exercise this rulemaking authority independently, they have
developed differing (albeit generally similar) rules and practices. This report addresses solely
developments in the House.
According to Hinds’ Precedents, the origin of a formal rule mandating the separation of general
legislation from appropriations can be traced to 1835, when the House debated the increasing
problem of delay in enacting appropriations due to the inclusion of “debatable matters of another
character, new laws which created long debates in both Houses” and suggested that the
Committee on Ways and Means2 should “strip the appropriation bills of every thing but were
legitimate matters of appropriation.”3 In the following Congress (25th Congress, 1837-1839),
language was added to House rules that stated:
No appropriation shall be reported in such general appropriation bills, or be in order as an
amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.
This rule was applied broadly on occasion to exclude legislative provisions authorizing new
expenditures as well, such as a case in 1838 when it was used to exclude an amendment that
included a provision for refurnishing the White House.4 Gradually, the rule “became construed
through a long line of decisions to admit amendments increasing salaries but as excluding
amendments providing for decreases.”5

1 Article I, Section 5.
2 The Committee on Ways and Means exercised jurisdiction over all money matters, including general appropriations
bills, until 1865. The expansion of the committee’s workload during and after the Civil War caused the House to create
two new committees in 1865 (Appropriations and Banking and Currency) and divide the workload accordingly.
3 Remarks of Representative John Quincy Adams in Congressional Globe, v. 3, 24th Cong., 1st sess., December 10,
1835, p. 20.
4 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States including references to
provisions of the Constitution, the laws, and decisions of the United States Senate
[hereinafter cited as Hinds’
Precedents
], (Washington: GPO, 1907), v. IV, chapter XCV, §3578, pp. 382-385.
5 Clarence Cannon, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States including references to
provisions of the Constitution, the laws, and Decisions of the United States Senate
[hereinafter cited as Cannon’s
Precedents
], (Washington: GPO, 1935), v. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1481, pp. 477-478.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

Development of the Holman Rule
As a consequence of this, in 1876, the language was expanded (at the suggestion of
Representative William Holman of Indiana) to further state:
Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto, changing existing law, be
in order except such as, being germane to the subject matter of the bill, shall retrench
expenditures.
As described by one scholar, this provision effectively granted the Appropriations Committee
authority to include virtually any legislative provision in an appropriations measure so long as it
reduced the number and salary of federal officials, the compensation of any person paid out of the
Treasury, or the amounts of money covered in an appropriation bill.6 According to one
contemporary account, a broad initial construction of the rule by the House resulted in “putting a
great mass of general legislation upon the appropriation bills.”7
The rule was retained in this form until 1880 (46th Congress), when it was modified to define
retrenchments as the reduction of “the number and salary of officers of the United States, the
reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or the
reduction of the amounts of money covered by the bill.” That form of the rule remained a part of
House rules until the 49th Congress eliminated it in 1885. It was reinserted in the rules for the 52nd
and 53rd Congresses (1891-1895) but was again dropped for the 54th through 61st Congresses
(1895-1911) before being readopted in the 62nd Congress.8
Although the Holman rule has remained a part of House rules since that time, its language was
amended at the start of the 98th Congress (1983-1984).9 At that time, it was restructured to narrow
the exception to the general prohibition against legislation to allow only retrenchments reducing
amounts of money covered by the bill. In addition, the House rules for the 98th Congress changed
when retrenchment amendments could be offered. Amendments that only alter the items or
amounts in an appropriation bill are generally in order when the measure is read for amendment
and must be offered as the relevant paragraph or section of the bill is read. The new version of the
rule provided, however, that germane amendments to retrench expenditures (as well as limitation
amendments) would be in order only after the reading of a general appropriation bill and if a
preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report (essentially ending
consideration of the bill) were rejected.
Further stylistic changes were made when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress
(1999-2000) to make explicit that retrenchment amendments are in order if the motion to rise and
report is not offered—as well as if the motion is rejected. It also clarified that the effect of a point
of order against legislation in an appropriations bill (and, by extension, the application of the
Holman rule exception) is surgical so that it lies against an offending provision in the text and not
against consideration of the entire bill.
The Holman rule currently states the following:

6 Louis Fisher, “The Authorization-Appropriation Process in Congress: Formal Rules and Informal Practices,” Catholic
University Law Review
, vol. 29 (Fall 1979), p. 57.
7 James A. Garfield, “National Appropriations and Misappropriations” North American Review, vol. 128, no. 271 (June
1879), p. 586.
8 Precedents related to the periods in which the rule was in effect prior to the 54th Congress appear in Hinds’
Precedents
, vol. IV, chapter XCVII, §§3885-3896, pp. 592-603.
9 For debate on adopting the rules of the House for the 98th Congress, see Congressional Record, vol. 129 (January 3,
1983), pp. 34-51.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill,
including a provision making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for the period of the appropriation,
except germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of
money covered by the bill
[emphasis added].
The Holman rule, thus, does not circumscribe Congress’s lawmaking authority but rather
provides a limited exception to the general prohibition in House rules against legislation in
appropriation measures.
For the 115th Congress, the House included a separate order as Section 3(a) of H.Res. 5, adopting
the rules of the House, that provides the following:
During the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, any reference in clause 2
of rule XXI to a provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by a reduction of
amounts of money covered by the bill shall be construed as applying to any provision or
amendment (offered after the bill has been read for amendment) that retrenches
expenditures by—
(1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill;
(2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or
(3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United
States.
As stated in a section-by section summary included in the Congressional Record by
Representative Pete Sessions, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, the purpose of this
provision is “to see if the reinstatement of the Holman rule will provide Members with additional
tools to reduce spending during consideration of the regular general appropriation bill.”10
The applicability of this separate order was extended under Section 5 of H.Res. 787 (115th
Congress) which provided that “Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking ‘the
first session of.’”11
This separate order was not adopted for the 116th or 117th Congresses, so the application of the
rule reverted to being guided by prior precedents rather than this language. In the 118th Congress,
identical language was again included as a separate order in Section 3(a) of H.Res. 5, adopting
the rules of the House.
Application
Since the period immediately after the initial adoption of the rule in the 19th century, the House
has interpreted it through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application.12
For example, early precedents established that while it was not always necessary that a

10 Representative Pete Sessions, “H.Res. 5 Adopting the Rules for the 115th Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 163
(January 3, 2017), p. H12.
11 Adopted by the House, 225-183, “Roll No. 118,” Congressional Record (daily edition), vol. 164 (March 20, 2018),
pp. H1711-H1712.
12 For more on recent application of the rule see Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Wickham, Jr.,
House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, 115th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington:
GPO, 2017), chapter 4, §§46-49; and Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of
the United States, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
, H.Doc. 113-181, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., [compiled by] Thomas J.
Wickham, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2015) [hereinafter cited as House Manual], §1062.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

retrenchment specify the amount of a reduction of expenditures, it must appear as a necessary
result of the legislation to be in order13 and that it is not sufficient that such reduction would
probably (or would in the opinion of the chair) result therefrom.14 For example, legislation that
would simply confer discretionary authority to terminate employment of federal employees is not
in order under the Holman exception because any resulting savings would be speculative.15 The
reduction also may not be contingent on an event.16 Furthermore, the rule is not applicable to
funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill.17
The Holman rule then is intended to apply only when an obvious reduction of funds in a general
appropriations bill is achieved by the provision in question, such as the cessation of specific
government activities,18 or through a specific reduction of total appropriations in the bill.19 In
addition, the exception does not apply to limitations (on the grounds that such language is not
legislative)20 or legislative language unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill.21
Legislation that is too broad has also typically not been allowed under the Holman rule exception.
The House has held, for example, that a provision that stated no part of an appropriation could be
expended for a specific, designated purpose qualified as a retrenchment. However, a proposal that
effectively repealed the law under which appropriations for that purpose were authorized was
held not to come within the exception.22 In another case, the House held that even when a
provision does reduce expenditures, it may not be accompanied by additional legislative
provisions not directly contributing to the reduction.23
Separate Order in the 115th and 118th Congresses
The separate order for the 115th Congress effectively reinstated language that had been stricken
from the rule in 1983. While the full scope of amendments might be in order as a consequence of

13 Cannon’s Precedents v. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1491, p. 485.
14 This principle is cited in multiple precedents stretching back to 1876, including Hinds’ Precedents, vol. IV, chapter
XCVII, §3885, p. 592-593, as well as Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §§1527-1545, pp. 524-549;
and Lewis Deschler, Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H.Doc. 94-661
(Washington: GPO, 1977-1991) [hereinafter cited as Deschler’s Precedents], vol. 8, chapter 26, §§5.1,5.2, 5.4-5.8. This
is further reinforced by the language in the standing order that uses reductions of “amounts of money in the bill” rather
than “amounts of money covered by the bill” as the standard for judging whether a provision qualifies under the
Holman Rule exception.
15 Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §5.12.
16 Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §5.3.
17 Two examples cited in the House Manual, §1062, include “Amendment Offered by Mr. Bow,” Congressional
Record
, vol. 112 (October 18, 1966), p. 27425; and “Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan,” Congressional
Record
, vol. 140 (June 17, 1994), p. 13422.
18 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1493, p. 489.
19 Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §4.5. This would include not only amendments that provide for the
reduction of a specific dollar amount but also those that provide for the reduction of each amount made available in an
appropriation act by a uniform percentage.
20 For a discussion of limitations and how they may be distinguished from legislation, see CRS Report R41634,
Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues, by James V. Saturno.
21 House Manual, §1062, citing the Congressional Record, v. 125, (July 16, 1979), pp. 18808–10.
22 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1486, p. 480.
23 That is, the legislative provision must be necessary to accomplish the retrenchment. Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII,
chapter CCXXIV, §1546, p. 549.
Congressional Research Service

4

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

this language, it is possible to analyze its potential impact based on past precedents and the
limited experience of the 115th Congress.
The additional language opened the door to the consideration of retrenchments resulting from a
reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States or the reduction of the
compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States. There are precedents
regarding provisions allowed under the older, pre-1983 form of the rule that may be illustrative
for understanding what might be in order.24 For example, a proposal that pay for a class of
employees be limited to a smaller number of employees than authorized by law was allowed, as
were proposals that would reduce the number of officers.25 The Holman rule also allowed
proposals that would consolidate or eliminate offices.26 On at least one occasion, the Holman rule
was the basis for allowing a proposal to replace civilian employees with lower paid U.S. Army
enlisted personnel.27 In another case, the rule allowed for an amendment that capped the salaries
of certain employees.28 In the 115th Congress, one amendment was considered in order based on a
plain reading of the text of the separate order to allow for “the reduction of the compensation of
any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Although the amendment failed of
passage, it would have provided that:
The salary of Mark Gabriel, the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration,
shall be reduced to $1.29
As cited above, however, neither the rule nor the separate order allows for retrenchments that
would be applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations
bill. In addition, the application of the broader exceptions in the separate order were still subject
to the general requirement for germaneness.30 The Holman rule is not intended to open the door
for legislative provisions that would expand the scope of the bill. As a consequence, even with the
additional scope provided by the language of the separate order, it would likely not be in order to
include broad legislative provisions in, or amendments to, a specific appropriation bill that would
apply to the salary or number of federal employees funded through appropriations in other
measures. Furthermore, House precedent establishes that simply providing for a reduction of the

24 For a discussion of historical precedents of the earlier form of the rule, see Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter
CCXXIV, pp. 477-570, and Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §§4-5.
25 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1506, p. 505; Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §4.3.
26 For example, an amendment was offered in the 115th Congress that would have abolished the Budget Analysis
Division of the Congressional Budget Office. “Amendment Number 5 Offered by Mr. Griffith,” Congressional Record
(daily edition), vol. 164 (July 26, 2017, pp. H6412-H6415. The amendment subsequently failed of passage, 116-309.
See p. H6449. In a number of instances, amendments have been allowed that abolished one or more offices or positions
and reassigned duties to other offices or positions. Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1507, pp. 505-
507 and §1504, p. 501-502; Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 8, chapter 26, §4.2.
27 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1492, p. 488.
28 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1498, p. 493. The amendment in question established a limit on
the pay of any employee of the United States Shipping Board. Because this maximum was less than the current salary
of several employees, the amendment was ruled in order because it had the effect of reducing the compensation of
persons paid out of the Treasury.
29 “Amendment Number 29 Offered by Mr. Gosar,” Congressional Record (daily edition), vol. 164 (June 7, 2018), pp.
H4946-H4947. The amendment subsequently failed of passage, 139-276. See p. H4961.
30 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §§1548, 1549, pp. 552-554.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Holman Rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 2(b))

number and salaries of officers in a paragraph when it is complicated by other elements does not
necessarily bring a proposition within the exception.31
The Holman rule was also cited as the basis for allowing the consideration of one additional
amendment during the 115th Congress. That amendment also failed to pass, but it would have
abolished the Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office, comprising 89
employees with annual salaries aggregating $15 million, transferring responsibility for any duties
imposed by law and regulation to the Office of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.32
When discussing the application of rules and precedents, it is important to note that the House
Parliamentarian is the sole definitive authority on questions relating to the chamber’s precedents
and procedures and should be consulted if a formal opinion on any specific parliamentary
question is desired.



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 not 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.


31 Cannon’s Precedents, vol. VII, chapter CCXXIV, §1500, p. 495. The amendment in question required the Secretary
of the Treasury to discharge not less than 218 employees and substitute 58 power plate-printing presses in place of 196
hand plate-printing presses. Although the discharge of 218 employees by itself may have qualified for the exception
under the Holman rule, the chair ruled that because the discharge was to be made possible as a consequence of the
switch from hand presses to power presses, when the amendment was taken as a whole it was not possible to determine
whether there would be a retrenchment of expenditures.
32 “Amendment Number 5 Offered by Mr. Griffith,” Congressional Record (daily edition), vol. 163 (July 26, 2017), pp.
H6412-H6415. The amendment subsequently failed of passage, 116-309. See p. H6449.
Congressional Research Service
R44736 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED
6