FY2018 and FY2019 Appropriations for Agricultural Conservation

Summary: The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. The FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141, Division A), and the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6, Division B) include funding for conservation programs and activities at USDA.

Summary: Congress passed the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act on March 23, 2018. FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including USDA, unfinished. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported Agriculture appropriations bills for FY2019 (H.R. 5961, S. 2976), with the Senate having amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus (H.R. 6147). Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245). After December 21, 2018, a partial shutdown of the government, including many agencies within USDA, occurred. One of the few exceptions was the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which was able to operate on mandatory and carryover funds during the majority of the shutdown. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for USDA and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 15, 2019, funding USDA through the end of the fiscal year (Division B, P.L. 116-6).

Summary: Agricultural conservation programs include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Most conservation program funding is mandatory and is authorized in omnibus farm bills. Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary and are funded through annual appropriations.

Summary: The largest discretionary program is the Conservation Operations (CO) account, which funds conservation planning and implementation assistance on private agricultural lands across the country. The enacted FY2018 appropriation provided $874 million for CO, an increase from the FY2017 enacted amount ($864 million). The enacted FY2019 appropriation decreases funding for CO below FY2018 levels to $819 million and redirects funding to the new Farm Production and Conservation Business Center. Other discretionary spending is primarily for watershed programs. The largest—Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—was funded at $150 million annually in FY2018 and FY2019.

Summary: Most mandatory conservation programs are authorized in omnibus farm bills and do not require an annual appropriation. However, Congress has reduced mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) in the annual agricultural appropriations law every year since FY2003. The enacted FY2018 omnibus marks the first appropriation since FY2002 that did not include CHIMPS to mandatory conservation programs. The enacted FY2019 appropriation also does not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs, as most programs' authorizations expired on September 30, 2018, making these programs ineligible for reduction. The 2018 farm bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334) reauthorized and amended funding for many of the mandatory conservation programs.

Summary: While this is infrequent, the Agriculture appropriations bill may also serve as a vehicle for amendments to authorized programs that permanently alter or create programs. The FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act included two such amendments—one to WFPO and one to farm bill conservation program reporting requirements. The WFPO amendment increased the size threshold required for congressional approval. Under the amended language, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees must approve WFPO projects that include an estimated federal contribution of more than $25 million for construction, an increase from the previous $5 million threshold. Additionally, the FY2018 appropriations act exempted farm bill conservation programs from select federal reporting requirements, including obtaining a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and System for Award Management (SAM) registration.

Summary: Agriculture appropriations bills may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation. The FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations acts both include policy provisions for conservation programs that range from reports to Congress to suggested natural resource priorities.

T he Agriculture appropriations bill—formally called the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), excluding the U.S. Forest Service. Congress passed the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act on March 23, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ). FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including USDA, unfinished. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported Agriculture appropriations bills for FY2019 ( H.R. 5961 , S. 2976 ), with the Senate having amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus ( H.R. 6147 ). Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018, at the FY2018 level ( P.L. 115-245 and P.L. 115-298 ). After December 21, 2018, a partial shutdown of the government, including many agencies within USDA, occurred. One of the few exceptions was the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which was able to operate on mandatory and carryover funds during the majority of the shutdown. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for USDA and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level ( P.L. 116-5 ). The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 15, 2019, funding USDA through the end of the fiscal year (Division B, P.L. 116-6 ).

This report provides a brief overview of the conservation-related provisions in the FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture appropriations acts. For a general analysis of the FY2018 appropriations for agriculture, see CRS Report R45128, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2018 Appropriations , and for FY2019, see CRS Report R45230, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations .

USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners with natural resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and easement programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most conservation programs, and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

Most conservation program funding is mandatory, obtained through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and authorized in omnibus farm bills (about $5.3 billion of CCC funds for conservation in FY2018). Other conservation programs—mostly technical assistance—are discretionary spending and are funded through annual appropriations (about $1 billion annually).

For the first time since FY2002, the FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act did not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs. It did, however, include legislative changes that affect farm bill programs and watershed programs. Similarly, the FY2019 appropriations act did not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs; however, the enacted 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act, P.L. 115-334 ) reauthorized and amended funding for many of the mandatory conservation programs. The FY2018 appropriations act included a slight increase from FY2017 levels for discretionary conservation programs. The FY2019 appropriations act included a decrease from FY2018 levels for discretionary conservation programs and redirected funding to the new Farm Production and Conservation Business Center (see Table 1 and Figure 1 ).

NRCS administers all discretionary conservation programs. The largest program and the account that funds most NRCS activities is Conservation Operations (CO). The CO account primarily funds Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), which provides conservation planning and implementation assistance through field staff placed in almost all counties within the United States and territories. Other components of CO include the Soil Surveys, Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting, and Plant Materials Centers.

The enacted FY2018 appropriation provided $874 million—more than the FY2017 enacted amount ($864 million). The enacted FY2019 appropriation decreases funding for CO below FY2018 levels to $819 million and redirects funding to the new Farm Production and Conservation Business Center. The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request ($699 million) was less than the amount later enacted for FY2019 due to a proposed consolidation of mandatory and discretionary accounts to pay for conservation technical assistance. The proposal to consolidate funding has been made by USDA through multiple Administrations but never adopted by Congress (see text box below). The FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture appropriations acts direct CO funding for a number of conservation programs ( Table 1 ). Report language further directs funding to selected activities ( Table 3 ).

The enacted FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations also contain funding for watershed activities, including $150 million annually for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)—a program that assists state and local organizations with planning and installing measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage. This is the same level as appropriated in FY2017, which was the first appropriated funding for the WFPO program since FY2010. Beginning in FY2006, Administrations began requesting no funding for WFPO, citing program inflexibility and a backlog of congressionally earmarked projects. The Trump Administration's FY2018 and FY2019 requests proposed no funding for the program.

Since FY2014, Congress has directed a portion of CO funds to select WFPO activities. Similar directive language ($5.6 million; see Table 1 ) is in the FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations, in addition to the $150 million made available each fiscal year for the program as a whole.

The enacted FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations include $10 million annually for the Watershed Rehabilitation program––a reduction from the FY2017 level of $12 million. The Watershed Rehabilitation program repairs aging dams previously built by USDA under WFPO. The Administration proposed no funding in FY2018 and FY2019.

The 2018 farm bill made minor amendments to WFPO, the most substantial being the authorization of permanent mandatory funding of $50 million annually. The new mandatory funding will be in addition to discretionary funding provided through annual appropriations and could be used for either WFPO or Watershed Rehabilitation activities.

Mandatory conservation programs are generally authorized in omnibus farm bills and receive funding from the CCC and thus do not require an annual appropriation. In the past, Congress has used annual agriculture appropriations acts to reduce mandatory conservation programs through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) every year from FY2003 to FY2017. The FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act marked the first appropriation since FY2002 that did not include CHIMPS to conservation programs. This allowed all mandatory conservation programs to utilize their full authorized level of funding in FY2018, minus sequestration. Additionally, prior-year CHIMPS concerning programs that are authorized to remain available until expended (e.g., Watershed Rehabilitation) became available for obligation in FY2018.

Nearly all mandatory conservation programs authorized in the 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014; P.L. 113-79 ) expired on September 30, 2018. One exception is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), whose authority was extended to FY2019 in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123 ). The 2018 farm bill reauthorized mandatory funding for all conservation programs, including for FY2019. Similar to FY2018, the FY2019 appropriations bill, which was enacted after enactment of the 2018 farm bill, does not include reductions to mandatory conservation programs.

On May 11, 2017, USDA announced the creation of the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area as part of a larger Departmental reorganization. FPAC includes NRCS, FSA, Risk Management Agency (RMA), and a new FPAC Business Center. The FPAC Business Center is responsible for financial management, budgeting, human resources, information technology, acquisitions/procurement, strategic planning, and other customer-oriented operations of the three domestic agriculture agencies (NRCS, FSA, and RMA).

The FY2018 Administration budget request was released two weeks following the announcement for FPAC (May 23, 2017), but did not include funding for the FPAC Business Center. The FY2019 Administration budget request did include funding for the Business Center ($196.4 million), as well as a request to transfer funding from other accounts ($76.3 million) to the Business Center. Final enactment of the FY2018 appropriation occurred on March 23, 2018, after the release of the Administration's FY2019 budget request, which occurred on February 12, 2018.

The FY2018 appropriation included about $1 million for the Business Center. The FY2018 explanatory statement required USDA to submit an implementation and spending plan to Congress for the new FPAC mission area that would detail requested transfers.

USDA submitted the FPAC spending plan on August 28, 2018. The FY2019 appropriation had already been marked up in the House and Senate, and did not include the full level of requested funding for the Business Center.

The enacted FY2019 appropriations (February 15, 2019), however, did increase funding for the Business Center. The enacted level is more than the Administration's request and directs a transfer of funds from other accounts into the Business Center, including mandatory conservation programs and farm loan accounts. Funding for NRCS and FSA is reduced accordingly and FPAC Business Center funding shifts are dictated in the FY2019 explanatory statement (see Table 2 ). It is unclear what level of savings is projected from the centralization of agency functions and what this savings will ultimately be redirected toward.

Overall, the total changes in funding for the new Business Center do not necessarily reflect a decline in NRCS resources. Total CO (discretionary spending) was reduced between FY2018 and FY2019 by $54.6 million, whereas NRCS' contribution to the FPAC Business Center appropriation for FY2019 is $70.8 million, thus indicating an effective increase of $16.2 million to NRCS in FY2019. This could result in NRCS effectively receiving less in total funding depending whether the amount shifted would have been used for administrative or technical assistance purposes had the Business Center not been in existence.

The mandatory conservation program funding ($60.2 million) that is authorized to be transferred to the FPAC Business Center comes from programs authorized to receive CCC funding under 16 U.S.C. 3841(a). Three programs within the conservation title of the 2018 farm bill are included in this transfer—EQIP, CSP, and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Other mandatory conservation programs funded through the cited CCC authority (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) are not included in the transfer, including CRP, which is administered by FSA. The transfer in the FY2019 appropriations act redirects mandatory funding that was authorized in the farm bill. It is unclear what, if any, effect the transfer could have on the implementation of EQIP, CSP, and ACEP, and the financial assistance offered by those programs.

In FY2019, a 34-day funding gap lasted from December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019. It affected agencies funded by 7 of the 12 appropriations bills, including Agriculture appropriations. In general, a shutdown results in the furlough of many personnel and curtailment of affected agency activities and services. Exceptions may allow certain activities to continue, such as for law enforcement, protection of human life or property, and activities funded by other means such as carryover funds or user fees. Agencies make their own determinations about activities and personnel that are "excepted" from furlough and publish their intentions in "contingency plans" that are supervised by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). USDA published contingency plans for each agency, including NRCS.

USDA initially estimated on December 23, 2018, that 61% of its employees were excepted from furlough in the agencies that are funded by Agriculture appropriations (all of USDA except the Forest Service), which amounts to 37,860 staff being excepted out of 62,288. The number of excepted and furloughed personnel varied by agency.

As previously discussed, NRCS funds technical assistance and related agency staff through both mandatory and discretionary accounts. As such, NRCS was initially able to claim as excepted 100% of its 9,342 staff using mandatory conservation program funding authorized through the farm bill (and therefore not affected by the lapse in discretionary appropriations), and discretionary carryover funding from prior fiscal years. As the shutdown continued, however, NRCS announced its intention to furlough some employees beginning on February 3, 2019, to conserve carryover balances and focus excepted staff on mandatory farm bill conservation program implementation. This plan was not implemented because the shutdown ended on January 25, 2019.

Generally, Congress employs two separate types of legislative measures—authorizations and appropriations. Authorization acts establish, continue, or modify agencies or programs. Appropriations acts generally provide discretionary funding for authorized agencies and programs.

While this practice is infrequent and subject to various procedural rules and limitations, the Agriculture appropriations bill may serve as a vehicle for amendments to authorized programs that permanently alter or create programs. These amendments generally have the force of law by amending the U.S. Code or by creating a permanent authorization. This is different from policy-related provisions (discussed in the " Policy-Related Provisions " section), which generally direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriations and whose effect is typically limited to the current fiscal year. In some cases, the 2018 farm bill further amended the conservation programs that were amended in the FY2018 appropriations act. Where relevant, these amendments are noted; however, the focus is on amendments made in appropriations acts.

The FY2018 agriculture appropriations act included statutory amendments to the WFPO program. Section 761 of P.L. 115-141 amended the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ) by increasing the size thresholds required for congressional approval under the program. Under the amended language, approval by the Senate and House Agriculture Committees is required for individual projects that need an estimated federal contribution of more than $25 million for construction, an increase from the previous $5 million threshold. This amendment originated in the FY2018 Senate-reported bill ( S. 1603 , §754).

The FY2018 appropriation also amended Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 ( P.L. 99-198 ; often referred to as the "1985 farm bill") by adding a new section that exempts farm bill conservation programs from certain reporting requirements. Federal grant recipients must comply with government-wide financial management policies and reporting requirements when receiving federal grants and agreements. Many of these reporting requirements are not new for USDA programs and have been in place for a number of years.

Interested stakeholders raised concerns when a number of the farm bill conservation programs were designated as grants (rather than direct payments) under a 2010 regulation. This designation triggered the use of a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and System for Award Management (SAM) registration. The DUNS number requirement and SAM registration did not affect individuals or entities that apply for conservation programs using a Social Security number. Rather, it applied only to those applying as an entity with a Taxpayer Identification Number or Employee Identification Number.

The amendment exempts producers and landowners who participate in farm bill conservation programs from the DUNS number and SAM registration requirement. The amendment originated in the FY2018 Senate-reported bill ( S. 1603 , §740). The 2018 farm bill moved and expanded this exemption to include conservation, indemnity or disease control, or commodity programs administered by NRCS, FSA, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill may also include policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out an appropriation. These provisions may have the force of law if they are included in the text of an appropriations act, but their effect is generally limited to the current fiscal year (see Table 3 ). Unlike the aforementioned authorization amendments that may be included in appropriations acts, policy-related provisions generally do not amend the U.S. Code or have long-standing effects.

For example, the WFPO program has historically been called the "small watershed program," because no project may exceed 250,000 acres, and no structure may exceed more than 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity or 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. The FY2018 and FY2019 enacted appropriations also include a policy provision that waives the 250,000-acre project limit when the project's primary purpose is something other than flood prevention. This provision does not amend the WFPO authorization and therefore is effective only for the funds provided during the appropriation year.

Table 3 compares some of the policy provisions that have been identified in the Farm Production and Conservation Programs (Title II) and General Provisions (Title VII) titles of the FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture appropriations bills related to conservation. Many of these provisions were also included in past years' appropriations laws.

The explanatory statement that accompanies the final appropriation—and the House and Senate report language that accompanies the committee-reported bills—may also provide policy instructions. These documents do not have the force of law but often explain congressional intent, which the agencies are expected to follow (see Table 4 ). The committee reports and explanatory statement may need to be read together to capture all of the congressional intent for a given fiscal year.

Table 4 compares some of the policy provisions that have been identified in the FY2018 and FY2019 Agriculture appropriations reported language related to conservation. The FY2018 enacted report language column includes references to the House (H) and Senate (S) report language, as well as the enacted (E) explanatory statement. The FY2019 enacted report language column includes references to the House (H) and Senate (S) report language, and the enacted (E) conference report. The inclusion of all three reports better captures congressional intent for each fiscal year. Many of these provisions have been included in past years' appropriations laws. Some provisions in report language and bill text address conservation programs not authorized or funded within the annual appropriation (i.e., mandatory spending for farm-bill-authorized programs).


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.

Summary: Since the period immediately after its initial adoption, the House has interpreted the Holman rule through precedents that have tended to incrementally 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.

Summary: 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:

Summary: any provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by—

Summary: (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill;

Summary: (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or

Summary: (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

Summary: This separate order was not readopted for the 116th Congress.

Summary: This report provides a history of this provision in House rules and an analysis of precedents that are illustrative of its possible application.

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." 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 Means should "strip the appropriation bills of every thing but were legitimate matters of appropriation." In the following Congress (25 th 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. Gradually, the rule "became construed through a long line of decisions to admit amendments increasing salaries but as excluding amendments providing for decreases."

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. 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."

The rule was retained in this form until 1880 (46 th 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 49 th Congress eliminated it in 1885. It was reinserted in the rules for the 52 nd and 53 rd Congresses (1891-1895) but was again dropped for the 54 th through 61 st Congresses (1895-1911) before being readopted in the 62 nd Congress.

Although the Holman rule has remained a part of House rules since that time, its language was amended at the start of the 98 th Congress (1983-1984). 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 98 th 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 106 th 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:

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 115 th 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—

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."

The applicability of this separate order was extended under Section 5 of H.Res. 787 (115 th Congress) which provided that "Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking 'the first session of.'"

This separate order was not adopted for the 116 th Congress, so the application of the rule reverts to being guided by prior precedents rather than this language.

Since the period immediately after the initial adoption of the rule in the 19 th century, the House has interpreted it through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application. For example, early precedents established that while it was not always necessary that a retrenchment specify the amount of a reduction of expenditures, it must appear as a necessary result of the legislation to be in order and that it is not sufficient that such reduction would probably (or would in the opinion of the chair) result therefrom. 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. The reduction also may not be contingent on an event. Furthermore, the rule is not applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill.

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, or through a specific reduction of total appropriations in the bill. In addition, the exception does not apply to limitations (on the grounds that such language is not legislative) or legislative language unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill. 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. 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.

The separate order for the 115 th 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 this language, it is possible to analyze its potential impact based on past precedents and the limited experience of the 115 th 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. 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. The Holman rule also allowed proposals that would consolidate or eliminate offices. 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. In another case, the rule allowed for an amendment that capped the salaries of certain employees. In the 115 th 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.

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. 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 number and salaries of officers in a paragraph when it is complicated by other elements does not necessarily bring a proposition within the exception.

The Holman rule was also cited as the basis for allowing the consideration of one additional amendment during the 115 th 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.

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.