Holman Rule
The Holman Rule is a fascinating historical aspect of the U.S. Congressional procedure, one that reemerged briefly in 2017 after spending decades out of practice. Named after Indiana Congressman William S. Holman, the rule was first adopted by the House of Representatives in 1876 during the 44th Congress. Its primary objective was to address concerns of federal spending and to increase accountability among civil servants.
At its core, the Holman Rule permitted members of Congress to propose amendments to appropriation bills that could reduce the salary of specific federal employees, or even eliminate entire positions or departments. This marked a departure from the general practice of setting agency budgets at an aggregate level and allowing the agencies themselves to determine the allocation of their resources. The application of this rule, however, required a majority vote in the House.
Fast forward to the early 20th century, the rule was repealed in 1895 but intermittently reinstated until it was finally put to rest in 1983. However, it returned in a limited form in January 2017 as part of the House rules package for the 115th Congress, only to be dropped again two years later.
- The Holman Rule was named after Congressman William S. Holman of Indiana, who was a stern advocate for frugality in government spending (source: U.S. House of Representatives Archive).
- The Holman Rule was first adopted in 1876 and last applied in the early 1980s before its brief revival in 2017 (source: Congressional Research Service).
- The application of the Holman Rule, even at its peak, required a majority vote in the House of Representatives (source: Congressional Research Service).
Many believe that the rule provides a useful tool for curbing unnecessary government spending and increases accountability. It allows legislators to specifically target wasteful spending or redundant positions.
For example, in the book “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” by Nancy MacLean, the author offers a skeptical perspective on the use of the Holman Rule, suggesting that it could be used as a tool by certain factions to undermine the power and reach of the federal government.
In theory, the Holman Rule could potentially be utilized to exert some form of financial pressure on the military or intelligence agencies in relation to the release of information about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs).
The Holman Rule allows members of the House of Representatives to propose amendments to appropriations bills that could, among other things, reduce the salary or funding of a specific government position or office. In the context of UAP information, a member of Congress could, hypothetically, propose an amendment to reduce the funding for a particular office within the Department of Defense or an intelligence agency until the requested UAP information is released.
First, it would need to garner majority support in the House of Representatives, which could be challenging given the contentious nature of such an approach. Second, any changes to appropriations bills would also have to be approved by the Senate and signed by the President to become law, adding further layers of complexity. Additionally, there could be legal and national security implications associated with attempting to force the release of potentially sensitive information in this manner.
The Holman Rule is a powerful legislative tool with a long and complex history. Its application and implications have sparked both praise and criticism from various quarters. However, it’s clear that when wielded correctly, it can serve as a potent instrument for fostering transparency and fiscal responsibility.
