Considering Regular Appropriations Bills on the House Floor: Current Practice Regarding Comprehensive Unanimous Consent Agreements

Considering Regular Appropriations Bills
on the House Floor: Current Practice
Regarding Comprehensive Unanimous
Consent Agreements
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on the Congress and Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Regular appropriations bills have traditionally been considered in the House of
Representatives under the terms of open rules, which provide substantial freedom of
debate and amendment. It has become common, however, for the House to begin
considering a spending bill under such an open rule, then quickly negotiate a
comprehensive unanimous consent (UC) agreement establishing more structured terms
for debating and amending the measure. Such UC agreements seek to strike a balance
between the needs of party and committee leaders for efficiency and scheduling
predictability, and the desires of rank-and-file Members to debate and freely amend
legislation funding the operations of the federal government.
By long tradition, most regular appropriations bills are considered by the House of
Representatives under the terms of an open rule reported by the House Committee on
Rules and adopted by the House (or under terms similar to an open rule).¹ This means
that when the bill is brought to the House floor, the number of amendments that can be
offered to it and the debate on those amendments are largely unrestricted. In the last
decade, however, the House has moved away from this pure open rule tradition and begun
to adopt unanimous consent (UC) agreements that comprehensively regulate the

¹ See, for example, Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 153, January 31, 2007, p. H1090. Prior to the 103^rd Congress (1993-1994), it was common
for regular appropriation bills to be brought to the House floor without a special rule, or by a
special rule that only waived points of order against the measure. These procedures, however,
established the same unrestricted terms for floor consideration that occur under open special
rules. It should be noted that one exception to this open tradition is the regular appropriations
bill that funds the legislative branch of government. This measure has in recent years been
regularly considered on the House floor under terms which limit consideration to specific
amendments.

consideration of regular appropriations bills shortly after an open rule brings them to the
floor.
When considering a spending bill under an open rule, the legislation is read by
paragraph in the Committee of the Whole. Members are free to propose amendments to
each pending paragraph, so long as their amendments comply with the chamber’s standing
rules. Any first degree amendment offered under an open rule is itself subject to further
amendment, and debate is largely unrestricted. By offering a pro forma amendment to
“strike the last word,” each Member may gain five minutes to speak on each pending
paragraph of the bill or amendments to it.
Although consideration of regular appropriations bills under an open rule provides
a forum that maximizes deliberation, it also means that the time spent considering such
measures is uncertain and open to wide variation. Time spent on floor consideration of
a given spending bill will depend on how many amendments are offered, and how long
Members choose to engage in debate.
To provide scheduling predictability and to facilitate progress in a busy chamber, it
has become common for the House, following a period of initial consideration of a regular
appropriations bill under an open rule, to adopt a UC agreement negotiated by the
Appropriations Committee, party leaders, and interested Members that comprehensively
regulates further debate and amendment of the legislation. Such UC agreements supplant
the open rule, limit the amendments that may be offered to a finite list, restrict debate, and
bar certain time-consuming procedures otherwise in order.
Timing and Frequency of Appropriations UC Agreements
The practice of bringing up a regular appropriations bill under an open rule, and
shortly thereafter replacing the rule with a comprehensive UC agreement structuring
further debate and amendment, was largely unseen prior to the 104^th Congress (1995-

1996). The practice is now routine.

In 2008, only one regular appropriations bill was considered on the House floor and
no comprehensive UC agreement was entered into during its consideration. In 2007,
however, eight regular appropriations bills that came to the House floor under an open
rule were subsequently regulated by such a UC agreement.² In 2006, seven of nine regular
appropriations bills considered under an open rule were subsequently regulated by such
a consent agreement. In 2005, seven out of ten bills brought up under an open rule were.

² Data from the Legislative Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress. Two other regular
110^th Congress appropriations bills, H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3222, the FY08 Military Construction
and Defense Appropriations measures, respectively, had open rules reported for their
consideration, but were brought up under the terms of such a negotiated comprehensive UC
agreement, and the special rules were never considered. H.R. 3161, the FY08 Agriculture
Appropriations bill, was also brought to the House floor under an open rule. After the House was
unable to negotiate a comprehensive UC agreement structuring its further consideration, the
Committee on Rules reported a second, structured rule which was adopted by the House.

The time between the adoption of an open special rule for a regular appropriation bill
and its being supplanted by a comprehensive UC agreement is often short — in most
cases, both occur on the same day. In fact, party leaders often notify Members of their
intention to craft such a UC agreement even before a bill comes to the House floor.³
UC Agreements vs. Structured Special Rules
Unanimous consent agreements regulating the further consideration of regular
appropriation bills limit the universe of possible amendments as well as the time for
considering those amendments. In this way, such UC agreements act in a manner similar
to a structured special rule, albeit with an important difference: every Member can have
a say in the content of a UC agreement and, in a real sense, dictate its terms. Under an
announced policy that is generally strictly adhered to, the Speaker will not normally
recognize a Member to propound such a unanimous consent request unless that request
has been cleared in advance by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership.⁴ Structured
special rules, by contrast, are privileged for consideration and adopted at the will of a
majority of the House.
In short, such UC agreements are largely accepted (and presumably increasingly
common) because they provide all parties with something they want — party leaders get
increased certainty about the floor schedule, the Appropriations Committee is able to
move its bills forward more readily, and Members are permitted to offer the amendments
of their choice.
Features of Appropriations UC Agreements
Unanimous consent agreements regulating the further consideration of regular
appropriations bills in the House have several common features that differ significantly
in effect from consideration under an open rule.⁵ Such UC agreements routinely:
^!Limit the amendments that can be offered to those listed in the
unanimous consent agreement by sponsor and subject, or by amendment
number. Occasionally, a UC agreement will give the majority bill
manager blanket authority to offer amendments on the subject of funding

³ For example, a July 18, 2007, e-mail from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to Members stated, “In
order to expedite consideration of the FY08 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill that
will be considered today and begin the drafting of a possible Unanimous Consent agreement, it
is critical that Democratic Members submit amendments they may have to the bill to the
Democratic staff of the Appropriations Committee. The amendment deadline is 5:00 p.m.,
TODAY, Tuesday, July 17, 2007.” Similar notices were sent relating to other regular spending
measures.
⁴ William Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson, House Practice, A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2003), ch. 54, §2, p. 882.
⁵ Unanimous consent agreements of this type must be propounded orally in the House, not in the
Committee of the Whole, and are published in the Congressional Record.

levels.⁶ By contrast, under an open rule, Members may freely offer
amendments to each pending paragraph of the bill so long as those
amendments comply with House rules and practice. In addition,
Members are not required to give notice of their amendments under an
open rule.
^!Specify that each amendment may be offered only by the named Member
or the Member’s designee and that those amendments shall be
considered as read.⁷ By contrast, under an open rule, any Member might
conceivably offer any amendment. Ordinarily, amendments that have not
been preprinted in the Congressional Record must be read aloud unless
their reading is waived by unanimous consent.
^!Forbid division of an amendment in the House or Committee of the
Whole.⁸ Ordinarily, as a matter of right, any Member may demand that
an amendment be divided — and its pieces voted on separately — if the
amendment consists of two or more separate, substantiative provisions.
^!Bar second-degree amendments to the amendments.⁹ Under an open
rule, when an amendment is offered, as many as three other amendments
may then be offered: an amendment to the amendment, a substitute for
it, and an amendment to the substitute.
^!Permit one pro forma amendment offered by each of the chair and
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the
Appropriations subcommittee on each amendment. Specify that only the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees may offer pro forma amendments at any point in the reading
of the bill.¹⁰ Under an open rule, each Member, not just the floor
managers, would be able to “strike the last word,” to obtain five minutes
to debate each amendment. As has been noted, under an open rule, each
Member may offer a pro forma amendment on the pending paragraph of
the bill during its reading. Structuring the UC agreement in this way puts
control of debate time almost exclusively in the hands of committee
leaders instead of rank-and-file Members.
^!Specify the time for debate on each amendment, often 10 minutes
equally-divided between a proponent and an opponent, although longer
periods may be specified.¹¹ Under an open rule, the proponent and
opponent of an amendment each have a right to five minutes of time, and

⁶ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, July 26, 2007, p. H8639.
⁷ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, July 24, 2007, p. H8317.
⁸ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, July 18, 2007, p. H8036.
⁹ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 18, 2007, p. H7296.
¹⁰ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 26, 2007, p. H7134.
¹¹ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 20, 2007, p. H6818.

debate may continue significantly beyond 10 minutes as other Members
offer pro forma amendments.
^!A statement that “An amendment shall be considered to fit the
description stated in this [UC agreement] if it addresses in whole or in
part the object described.”¹² Normally in the Committee of the Whole,
a Member would need unanimous consent to modify his or her
amendment. Under a structured special rule, such modifications would
not be in order at all. This language of the UC agreement allows
Members to freely negotiate changes in a given amendment as long as it
addresses the subject contemplated, fostering progress on the bill. In
order to further expedite consideration, such UC agreements sometimes
grant the bill manager blanket authority to package amendments on the
list en bloc. In these instances, it is common for the agreement to permit
Members to insert remarks on their amendments in the Congressional
Record.
^!Other provisions: Although less common, such UC agreements
sometimes waive points of order against amendments or deem certain
amendments to be automatically adopted.¹³
Procedural Events Not Covered by Such UC Agreements
It should be noted that unanimous consent agreements of this type do not provide
complete certainty of how long floor consideration of a given spending measure will last,
because they do not regulate time spent on every procedural step that may occur,
including voting on the amendments themselves; the bill managers “striking the last
word” and yielding to other Members for debate; any separate votes requested after the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports the bill back to the House; consideration and
voting on the motion to recommit; voting on final passage, and any general “slippage” of
time.
Other procedural events, including, but not limited to, points of order, appeals,
quorum calls, and motions to rise, might also extend floor consideration of a given regular
appropriations measure and also might add some uncertainty to the proceedings.

¹² Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 14, 2007, p. H6411.
¹³ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, July 27, 2001, p. H4751.