Jefferson's Manual and Rules of The (Us) House of Representatives

111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - House Document No.
111–157
CONSTITUTION
JEFFERSON’S MANUAL
AND
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
JOHN V. SULLIVAN
PARLIAMENTARIAN
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–700 WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
congress.#13
VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Jun 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0850 Sfmt 0850 H:\BIN-H\PUBLICATIONS\MANUAL\112\63-700.TXT 209-5A
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1720
IN THE HOUSE
REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
OF
November 17, 2010.
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Man-
ual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred
Twelfth Congress be printed as a House document, and
that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and
bound for the use of the House of Representatives, of
which nine hundred sixty copies shall be bound in leather
with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the
Parliamentarian of the House.
Attest:
LORRAINE C. MILLER,
Clerk.
(III)
PREFACE
The House Rules and Manual contains the fundamental
source material for parliamentary procedure used in the
House of Representatives: the Constitution of the United
States; applicable provisions of Jefferson’s Manual; Rules
of the House (as of the date of this preface); provisions of
law and resolutions having the force of Rules of the
House; and pertinent decisions of the Speakers and other
presiding officers of the House and Committee of the
Whole interpreting the rules and other procedural author-
ity used in the House of Representatives.
The rules for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress were
adopted on January 5, 2011, when the House agreed to
House Resolution 5. In addition to a series of changes to
various standing rules, House Resolution 5 included sepa-
rate free-standing orders constituting procedures to be fol-
lowed in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress. Expla-
nations of the changes to the standing rules appear in the
annotations following each rule in the text of this Manual.
In the One Hundred Sixth Congress, the House adopted
a recodification of the Rules of the House. For an expla-
nation of the recodified format, see the Preface and other
introductory matter for the House Rules and Manual for
the One Hundred Sixth Congress (H. Doc. 105–358).
The substantive changes in the standing rules made by
House Resolution 5 of the 112th Congress included:
(1) repeal of provisions permitting Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to vote in and to preside over the
Committee of the Whole (clause 3(a) of rule III; clause 1
of rule XVIII; former clause 6(h) of rule XVIII);
(2) modernization of rules on media coverage to elimi-
nate specific reference to various media organizations
(clause 2 of rule VI; clause 3 of rule VI; clause 4(f) of rule
XI);
(3) expansion of the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Armed Services to include certain national cemeteries
(clause 1(c) of rule X);
(4) redesignation of the Committee on Education and
Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
of the Committee on Science and Technology as the Com-
mittee on Science, Space, and Technology, and of the Com-
[V]
PREFACE
mittee on Standards of Official Conduct as the Committee

on Ethics (clause 1 of rule X);
(5) expansion of committee oversight plans to include
proposals to eliminate duplicative federal programs
(clause 2(d)(1) of rule X);
(6) elimination of the Select Intelligence Oversight
Panel of the Committee on Appropriations (former clause
4(a)(5) of rule X);
(7) with regard to authority for the Committee on Over-
sight and Government Reform to authorize the use of
depositions to take testimony, requirement for the pres-
ence of a member of the committee, subject to waiver by
the deponent (clause 4(c)(3) of rule X);
(8) direction to the Committee on House Administration
to establish standards for making documents publicly
available in electronic form, and for such availability to
satisfy layover requirements (clause 4(d)(1)(E) of rule X;
clause 3 of rule XXIX);
(9) reinstatement of committee chair tenure limitation
generally, except for the Committee on Rules (clause
5(c)(2) of rule X);
(10) adjustment of the size and ratio of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence (clause 11(a) of rule X);
(11) increase in frequency of committee activity reports
(clause 1(d) of rule XI);
(12) requirement that committee rules be made publicly
available in electronic form (clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI);
(13) requirement that committees provide audio and
video coverage of certain committee proceedings (clause
2(e)(5) of rule XI);
(14) requirement that certain committee votes and the
text of certain committee amendments be made publicly
available following a committee proceeding (clause 2(e)(1)
of rule XI; clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI);
(15) requirement for committee meetings to be noticed,
with provision for waiver (clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI);
(16) requirement for legislation to be made available
prior to a committee meeting (clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI);
(17) requirement that committee witness disclosure
statements be made publicly available in electronic form
following the appearance of the witness (clause 2(g)(5) of
rule XI);
(18) requirement for a statement of constitutional au-
thority to accompany every introduced bill and joint reso-
lution (clause 7(c) of rule XII);
[VI]
PREFACE
(19) repeal of the exemption for the Committee on Rules

from the requirement that committees include certain
record votes in committee reports (clause 3(b) of rule XIII);
(20) modification of the prohibition on use of a wireless
telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House
to apply to any mobile electronic device that impairs deco-
rum (clause 5 of rule XVII);
(21) authority for chair of the Committee of the Whole
to reduce to not less than two minutes (instead of five) the
minimum time for certain votes (clause 6(f) and 6(g) of
rule XVIII);
(22) repeal of a provision permitting motions to strike
unfunded Federal mandates exceeding a specified thresh-
old from a bill during the amendment process in the Com-
mittee of the Whole (former clause 11 of rule XVIII);
(23) modification of the requirement regarding the
‘‘floor’’ on transportation obligations to apply instead to
spending authority derived from the Highway Trust Fund
for unauthorized purposes (clause 3 of rule XXI);
(24) modification of the prohibition on consideration of
a concurrent resolution on the budget containing reconcili-
ation directives that would reduce a surplus or increase a
deficit to apply instead to such directives that would cause
an increase in net direct spending (clause 7 of rule XXI);
(25) prohibition on consideration of certain measures in-
creasing direct spending over certain time periods with ex-
ceptional cumulatory treatment in the case of a special
order of business combining in one engrossment sepa-
rately-passed measures, and exclusion of certain emer-
gency items (clause 10 of rule XXI);
(26) requirement for an introduced bill or joint resolu-
tion to layover before consideration (clause 11 of rule XXI);
(27) repeal of the rule providing for automatic passage
and engrossment of a measure adjusting the statutory
limit on public debt (former rule XXVIII); and
(28) authority for chair of the Committee on the Budget
to render estimates of certain budgetary levels when a
rule contemplates that the Chair is authoritatively guided
by estimates from the Committee on the Budget (clause 4
of rule XXIX).
Citations in this edition refer to:
(1) Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of
the United States (volumes I through V) and Cannon’s
Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United
States (volumes VI through VIII), by volume and section
(e.g., V, 5763; VIII, 2852);
[VII]
PREFACE
(2) Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Rep-

resentatives (volumes 1 through 9) and the Deschler-
Brown Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives
(volumes 10 through 17), by chapter and section (e.g.,
Deschler, ch. 26, § 79.7; Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 4.26);
(3) the Congressional Record, by date and page (e.g.,
Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684);
(4) House Practice (2003), by chapter and section (e.g.,
House Practice, ch. 1, § 2);
(5) Deschler-Brown Procedure in the U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives (4th edition and 1987 supplement), by chap-
ter and section (e.g., Procedure, ch. 5, § 8.1);
(6) the United States Code, by title and section (e.g., 2
U.S.C. 287); and
(7) the United States Reports, by volume and page (e.g.,
395 U.S. 486).
Readers are invited to refer to the prefaces of Hinds’,
Cannon’s, and Deschler’s Precedents (Volumes I, VI, and
1, respectively) for comprehensive overviews by those edi-
tors of the procedural history of the House of Representa-
tives from 1789 to 1976.
All of the members of the Office of the Parliamentarian
— Tom Wickham, Ethan Lauer, Carrie Wolf, Max Spitzer,
Jay Smith, Brian Cooper, Lloyd Jenkins, and Monica
Rodriguez, as well as Charles Johnson, Andrew Neal,
Deborah Khalili, and Bryan Feldblum — worked diligently
to annotate the decisions of the Chair and other par-
liamentary precedents of the 111th Congress and of the
112th Congress to the date of publication of this edition.
Their contributions, and their devotion to the pursuit of
excellence in the procedural practices of the House, are
gratefully acknowledged. Particular appreciation goes to
Ethan Lauer for his initiative and resourcefulness in man-
aging the project and to Tom Wickham for his operational
leadership.
On occasion members of the Office of the Parliamen-
tarian have engaged in parliamentary exchanges with
counterparts in other national legislatures. In some coun-
tries we have seen highly dedicated institutional staff
struggle to help their elected representatives achieve even
minimal goals because they were equipped with only the
most modest tools. We have thus come to appreciate the
commitment of our Congress to the development and
maintenance of its institutional capacities. The institu-
tional staff of our House of Representatives — to cite a
prime example from personal observation, those who serve
[VIII]
PREFACE
in the Office of Legislative Counsel — are granted office

space, information technology, and dignified terms of em-
ployment that enable them to strive as a matter of course
for nothing short of excellence. We in the Office of the
Parliamentarian and, within it, the Office of Compilation
of Precedents, are especially gratified to reflect on the
demonstrated commitment of the House to institutional
values that put us in a position to exercise independent,
professional, legal judgment in the nonpartisan perform-
ance of our duties.
In resolving questions of order, the Speaker and other
presiding officers of the House adhere to the jurispru-
dential principle of stare decisis — a commitment to stand
by earlier decisions. This fidelity to precedent promotes
analytic consistency and procedural predictability and
thereby fosters legitimacy in the parliamentary practice of
the House. The commitment of the House to stand by its
procedural decisions requires that we be rigorous about
what constitutes precedent. In the parliamentary context,
the term does not refer to a mere instance in which an
event occurred or was suffered; rather, it refers to a deci-
sion or order actually disposing of a question of order. As
we strive to apply pertinent precedent to each procedural
question, the compilation of the parliamentary precedents
of the House becomes as important as any other function
of the Office of the Parliamentarian.
The compilation of precedents depends implicitly on a
transcript of the actual proceedings of the House. In this
light, the people who form the leading edge of the process
by which we compile the precedents of the House are the
Official Reporters of Debate. The virtually verbatim tran-
script of floor proceedings that the reporters produce daily
for publication in the Congressional Record is the indis-
pensable raw material of the precedents-compilation proc-
ess. This is not to say that the material is unfinished. In-
deed, the reporters, collectively — the stenographers, tran-
scribers, and clerks who produce floor transcripts in near-
real time, and who cover the proceedings of the commit-
tees of the House, as well — routinely maintain levels of
accuracy, speed, teamwork, organization, and profes-
sionalism that are simply astonishing, day in and day out.
Members of our office have worked with many court re-
porters in trial and appellate proceedings elsewhere and
have marveled at their skill. But we know of no forum
that asks more of its reporters than does the House, and
we know of no reporters who perform better than do ours.
[IX]
PREFACE
They have our highest commendations and deepest thanks

for a difficult job superbly done.
Finally, we are continually grateful for the wealth of re-
corded precedent that guides the procedural practices of
the House. Although the perennial refinement of written
rules and the endless ingenuity of legislative practitioners
yield questions of first impression more frequently than
one might expect, even more remarkable is how regularly
the right answer to a procedural question is readily sup-
plied in the work of our predecessors in compiling the par-
liamentary precedents of the House: Asher Hinds, Clar-
ence Cannon, Lewis Deschler, William Holmes Brown, and
Charles W. Johnson.
JOHN V. SULLIVAN
MAY 13, 2011
[X]
CONTENTS
THE CONSTITUTION
Page
PREAMBLE ............................................................................................ 3
ARTICLE I.—The legislative power .......................................... 4
II.—The executive power ........................................... 66
III.—The judicial power .............................................. 78
IV.—Obligations, duties, etc., of the States .............. 80
V.—Amendments to ................................................... 82
VI.—Law of the land, etc. ........................................... 84
VII.—Ratification of ...................................................... 88
Amendments ratified .......................................... 91
SECTION I.—Importance of adhering to rules ........................ 127

III.—Privilege ............................................................... 130
VI.—Quorum ................................................................ 149
VII.—Call of the House ................................................ 150
IX.—Speaker ................................................................ 151
X.—Address ................................................................ 153
XI.—Committees ......................................................... 154
XII.—Committee of the Whole ..................................... 157
XIII.—Examination of witnesses .................................. 166
XIV.—Arrangement of business ................................... 171
XV.—Order .................................................................... 173
XVI.—Order respecting papers ..................................... 173
XVII.—Order in debate ................................................... 174
XVIII.—Orders of the House ............................................ 195
XIX.—Petition ................................................................ 199
XX.—Motion .................................................................. 200
XXI.—Resolutions .......................................................... 201
XXIII.—Bills, leave to bring in ........................................ 203
XXIV.—Bills, first reading ............................................... 204
XXV.—Bills, second reading ........................................... 204
XXVI.—Bills, commitment ............................................... 205
XXVII.—Report of committee ........................................... 215
[XI]
CONTENTS
Page
SECTION XXVIII.—Bill, recommitment ............................................. 216
XXIX.—Bills, reports taken up ....................................... 218
XXX.—Quasi-committee ................................................. 219
XXXI.—Bill, second reading in the House ..................... 223
XXXII.—Reading papers ................................................... 225
XXXIII.—Privileged questions ........................................... 227
XXXIV.—The previous question ........................................ 240
XXXV.—Amendments ....................................................... 242
XXXVI.—Division of the question ..................................... 251
XXXVII.—Coexisting questions ........................................... 254
XXXVIII.—Equivalent questions .......................................... 255
XXXIX.—The question ........................................................ 257
XL.—Bills, third reading ............................................. 258
XLI.—Division of the House ......................................... 262
XLII.—Titles .................................................................... 267
XLIII.—Reconsideration ................................................... 268
XLIV.—Bills sent to the other House ............................. 271
XLV.—Amendments between the Houses .................... 272
XLVI.—Conferences ......................................................... 282
XLVII.—Messages .............................................................. 295
XLVIII.—Assent .................................................................. 299
XLIX.—Journals ............................................................... 302
L.—Adjournment ....................................................... 304
LI.—A session .............................................................. 306
LII.—Treaties ................................................................ 309
LIII.—Impeachment ....................................................... 313
RULES OF THE HOUSE
RULE I.—The Speaker ........................................................ 333

II.—Other Officers and Officials ............................... 355
III.—The Members, Delegates, and Resident 374
Commissioner of Puerto Rico.
IV.—The Hall of the House ........................................ 379
V.—Broadcasting the House ..................................... 387
VI.—Official Reporters and News Media Galleries .. 389
VII.—Records of the House .......................................... 401
VIII.—Response to Subpoenas ...................................... 405
IX.—Questions of Privilege ......................................... 409
X.—Organization of Committees .............................. 429
XI.—Procedures of Committees and Unfinished 541
Business.
XII.—Receipt and Referral of Measures and Matters 608
XIII.—Calendars and Committee Reports ................... 623
XIV.—Order and Priority of Business .......................... 657
XV.—Business in Order on Special Days ................... 668
[XII]
CONTENTS
Page
RULE XVI.—Motions and Amendments ................................. 686
XVII.—Decorum and Debate .......................................... 741
XVIII.—The Committee of the Whole House on the 770
state of the Union.
XIX.—Motions Following the Amendment Stage ........ 799
XX.—Voting and Quorum Calls .................................. 814
XXI.—Restrictions on Certain Bills .............................. 844
XXII.—House and Senate Relations .............................. 900
XXIII.—Code of Official Conduct ..................................... 927
XXIV.—Limitations on Use of Official Funds ................ 938
XXV.—Limitations on Outside Earned Income and 943
Acceptance of Gifts.
XXVI.—Financial Disclosure ........................................... 972
XXVII.—Disclosure by Members and Staff of 996
Employment Negotiations.
XXVIII.—[Reserved] ............................................................ 998
XXIX.—General Provisions .............................................. 998
PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED

BY THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970, APPLICABLE TO
BOTH HOUSES
Congressional adjournment ................................................................ 1003

Preservation of committee hearings .................................................. 1004
JOINT AND SELECT COMMITTEES
Economic Committee, Joint ................................................................ 1005

Internal Revenue Taxation, Joint Committee on ............................. 1005
Library, Joint Committee of Congress on the ................................... 1006
Printing, Joint Committee on ............................................................ 1006
Inaugural Ceremonies, Joint Congressional Committee on ............ 1006
Select committees ................................................................................ 1006
HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards ............... 1009

House Office Building Commission ................................................... 1009
Government Accountability Office ..................................................... 1009
Office of Compliance ........................................................................... 1009
Congressional Research Service ......................................................... 1010
Legislative Counsel ............................................................................. 1010
Congressional Budget Office .............................................................. 1010
Law Revision Counsel ......................................................................... 1010
Technology Assessment ...................................................................... 1010
Office of the Parliamentarian ............................................................ 1010
Office of Floor Assistants ................................................................... 1011
[XIII]
CONTENTS
Page
Office of Interparliamentary Affairs .................................................. 1011
House Recording Studio ..................................................................... 1011
United States Capitol Preservation Commission ............................. 1011
Office of General Counsel ................................................................... 1011
Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations ....... 1012
Office of Attending Physician ............................................................. 1012
Office of Architect of the Capitol ....................................................... 1012
House Democracy Partnership ........................................................... 1012
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission .......................................... 1012
Office of Congressional Ethics ........................................................... 1013
Early organization of the House ........................................................ 1015
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET LAWS
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 ..................................................... 1021

Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 ....................................................... 1099
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 ............................................... 1103
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES ENACTED IN LAW
Measures privileged for consideration in House .............................. 1107
INDEX
Index .................................................................................................... 1277
[XIV]
GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
RULE XIV
First. Prayer by Chaplain.

Second. Approval of Journal.
Third. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Fourth. Correction of reference of public bills.
Fifth. Disposal of business on Speaker’s table.
Sixth. Unfinished business.
Seventh. The morning hour for the consideration of bills.
Eighth. Motions to go into Committee of the Whole.
Ninth. Orders of the day.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
MONDAYS
Second and fourth Mondays:

Motions to discharge committees. Rule XV, clause 2.
District of Columbia Business. Rule XV, clause 4.
Every Monday:
Motions to suspend rules. Rule XV, clause 1.
TUESDAYS
First and third Tuesdays:

Private Calendar. Rule XV, clause 5. Individual private bills consid-
ered on first Tuesday of each month, omnibus private bills may be
considered on third Tuesday of each month.
Every Tuesday:
WEDNESDAYS
Call of Committees under Calendar Wednesday. Rule XV, clause 7.

Every Wednesday:
[XV]
CONSTITUTION
[1]
WE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order
THE
to form a more perfect Union, es-
§ 1. The preamble.
tablish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Pos-
terity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.
The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in September, 1774
and adopted the Declaration and Resolves of the First
§ 2. Formation of the
Constitution. Continental Congress, embodying rights and principles
later to be incorporated into the Constitution of the
United States. The Second Continental Congress adopted in November,
1777 the Articles of Confederation, which the States approved in July,
1778. Upon recommendation of the Continental Congress, a convention
of State representatives met in May, 1787 to revise the Articles of Confed-
eration and reported to the Continental Congress in September a new Con-
stitution, which the Congress submitted to the States for ratification. Nine
States, as required by the Constitution for its establishment, had ratified
by June 21, 1788, and eleven States had ratified by July 26, 1788. The
Continental Congress adopted a resolution on September 13, 1788, putting
the new Constitution into effect; the First Congress of the United States
convened on March 4, 1789, and George Washington was inaugurated as
the first President on April 30, 1789.
[3]
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
§ 3–§ 6 [ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1–2]
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein
§ 3. Legislative powers granted shall be vested in a Con-
vested in Congress.
gress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives.
The power to legislate includes the power to conduct inquiries and inves-
tigations. See Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880); McGrain v.
§ 4. Power to
Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Watkins v. United
investigate. States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Barenblatt v. United
States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959). For the power of the House
to punish for contempt in the course of investigations, see § 293, infra.
SECTION 2. 1 The House of Rep-

§ 5. Members chosen
resentatives shall be composed of

by the people of the
States every second
year. Members chosen every second Year
by the People of the several States, * * *.
This clause requires election by the people and State authority may not
determine a tie by lot (I, 775).
The phrase ‘‘by the people of the several States’’ means that as nearly
as practicable one person’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth
as much as another’s. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Kirkpatrick
v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969). 2 U.S.C. 2a mandates apportionment of
Representatives based upon population, and 2 U.S.C. 2c requires the estab-
lishment by the States of single-Member congressional districts. For elec-
tions generally, see Deschler, ch. 8.
The term of a Congress, before the ratification of the 20th amendment
§ 6. Term of a
to the Constitution, began on the 4th of March of the
Congress. odd numbered years and extended through two years.
This resulted from the action of the Continental Con-
gress on September 13, 1788, in declaring, on authority conferred by the
Federal Convention, ‘‘the first Wednesday in March next’’ to be ‘‘the time
for commencing proceedings under the said Constitution.’’ This date was
March 4, 1789. Soon after the first Congress assembled a joint committee
determined that the terms of Representatives and Senators of the first
class commenced on that day, and must necessarily terminate with the
3d of March, 1791 (I, 3). Under the 20th amendment to the Constitution
the terms of Representatives and Senators begin on the 3d of January
of the odd-numbered years, regardless of when Congress actually convenes.
By a practice having the force of common law, the House meets at noon
when no other hour is fixed (I, 4, 210). In the later practice a resolution
[4]
[ARTICLE I, SECTION 2] § 7–§ 9
fixing the daily hour of meeting is agreed to at the beginning of each ses-
sion.
Before adoption of the 20th amendment, the legislative day of March
3 extended to noon on March 4 (V, 6694–6697) and, unless earlier ad-
journed, the Speaker could at that time declare the House adjourned sine
die, without motion or vote, even to the point of suspending a roll call
then in progress (V, 6715–6718).
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) provides that
unless Congress otherwise specifies the two Houses shall adjourn sine die
not later than the last day in July. This requirement is not applicable,
under the terms of that Act, if a state of war exists pursuant to a congres-
sional declaration or if, in an odd-numbered (nonelection) year, the Con-
gress has agreed to adjourn for the month preceding Labor Day. For more
on this provision, see § 1106, infra.
* * * and the Electors in each

§ 7. Electors of the
House of
State shall have the Qualifications
Representatives.
requisite for Electors of the most
numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
The House, in the decision of an election case, has rejected votes cast
by persons not naturalized citizens of the United States, although they
were entitled to vote under the statutes of a State (I, 811); but where
an act of Congress had provided that a certain class of persons should
be deprived of citizenship, a question arose over the proposed rejection
of their votes in a State wherein citizenship in the United States was not
a qualification of the elector (I, 451). In an exceptional case the House
rejected votes cast by persons lately in armed resistance to the Govern-
ment, although by the law of the State they were qualified voters (I, 448);
but later, the House declined to find persons disqualified as voters because
they had formerly borne arms against the Government (II, 879).
The power of the States to set qualifications for electors is not unlimited,
§ 8. Decisions of the
being subject to the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amend-
Court. ments, and to the equal protection clause of the United
States Constitution. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89
(1965); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969).
Congress has some power in setting qualifications for electors, as in pro-
tecting the right to vote and lowering the minimum age for electors in
congressional elections. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966); Or-
egon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).
2 NoPerson shall be a Represent-
§ 9. Age as a
qualification of the
Representative.
ative who shall not have attained
to the Age of twenty five
Years, * * *.
[5]
§ 10–§ 11 [ARTICLE I, SECTION 2]
A Member-elect not being of the required age, was not enrolled by the
Clerk and he did not take the oath until he had reached the required
age (I, 418).
§ 10. Citizenship as a * * * and been seven Years a Cit-

Member.
izen of the United States, * * *.
Henry Ellenbogen, Pa., had not been a citizen for seven years when elect-
ed to the 73d Congress, nor when the term commenced on March 4, 1933.
He was sworn at the beginning of the second session on January 3, 1934,
when a citizen for seven and one-half years (see H. Rept. 1431 and H.
Res. 370, 73d Cong.). A native of South Carolina who had been abroad
during the Revolution and on his return had not resided in the country
seven years, was held to be qualified as a citizen (I, 420). A woman who
forfeited her citizenship through marriage to a foreign subject and later
resumed it through naturalization less than seven years before her election,
was held to fulfill the constitutional requirement as to citizenship and enti-
tled to a seat in the House (VI, 184). A Member who had long been a
resident of the country, but who could not produce either the record of
the court nor his final naturalization papers, was nevertheless retained
in his seat by the House (I, 424).
§ 11. Inhabitancy as a * * * and who shall not, when

Member.
elected, be an Inhabitant of that
State in which he shall be chosen.
The meaning of the word ‘‘inhabitant’’ and its relation to citizenship
has been discussed (I, 366, 434; VI, 174), and the House has held that
a mere sojourner in a State was not qualified as an inhabitant (I, 369),
but a contestant was found to be an actual inhabitant of the State although
for sufficient reason his family resided in another State (II, 1091). Resi-
dence abroad in the service of the Government does not destroy inhabitancy
as understood under the Constitution (I, 433). One holding an office and
residing with his family for a series of years in the District of Columbia
exclusively was held disqualified to sit as a Member from the State of
his citizenship (I, 434); and one who had his business and a residence
in the District of Columbia and had no business or residence in Virginia
was held ineligible to a seat from that State (I, 436). One who had a home
in the District of Columbia, and had inhabited another home in Maryland
a brief period before his election, but had never been a citizen of any other
State, was held to be qualified (I, 432). Also a Member who had resided
a portion of a year in the District of Columbia, but who had a home in
the State of his citizenship and was actually living there at the time of
the election, was held to be qualified (I, 435). In the Updike v. Ludlow
case, 71st Congress, it was decided that residence in the District of Colum-
[6]
[ARTICLE I, SECTION 2] § 12
bia for years as a newspaper correspondent and maintenance there of

church membership were not considered to outweigh payment of poll and
income taxes, ownership of real estate, and a record for consistent voting
in the district from which elected (VI, 55), and in the same case excuse
from jury duty in the District of Columbia on a plea of citizenship in the
State from which elected and exercise of incidental rights of such citizen-
ship, were accepted as evidence of inhabitancy (VI, 55).
Whether Congress may by law establish qualifications other than those
§ 12. Qualifications
prescribed by the Constitution has been the subject of
other than those much discussion (I, 449, 451, 457, 458, 478); but in a
specified by the case wherein a statute declared a Senator convicted of
Constitution. a certain offense ‘‘forever thereafter incapable of hold-
ing any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Gov-
ernment of the United States,’’ the Supreme Court expressed the opinion
that the final judgment of conviction did not operate, ipso facto, to vacate
the seat or compel the Senate to expel or regard the Senator as expelled
by force alone of the judgment (II, 1282). Whether the House or Senate
alone may set up qualifications other than those of the Constitution has
also been a subject often discussed (I, 414, 415, 443, 457, 458, 469, 481,
484). The Senate has always declined to act on the supposition that it
had such a power (I, 443, 483), and during the stress of civil war the House
of Representatives declined to exercise the power, even under cir-
cumstances of great provocation (I, 449, 465). But later, in one instance,
the House excluded a Member-elect on the principal argument that it might
itself prescribe a qualification not specified in the Constitution (I, 477).
The matter was extensively debated in the 90th Congress in connection
with the consideration of resolutions relating to the seating of Representa-
tive-elect Adam C. Powell of New York (H. Res. 1, Jan. 10, 1967, p. 14;
H. Res. 278, Mar. 1, 1967, p. 4997). In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S.
486 (1969), the Supreme Court found that the power of Congress to judge
the qualifications of its Members was limited to an examination of the
express qualifications stated in the Constitution.
It has been decided by the House and Senate that no State may add
to the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution (I, 414–416, 632); and
the Supreme Court so ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton, 514
U.S. 779 (1995). There, the Court held that States may not ‘‘change, add
to, or diminish’’ constitutional qualifications of Members, striking down
a State statute prohibiting three-term incumbents from appearing on the
general election ballot. For qualifications generally, see Deschler, ch. 7,
§§ 9–14.
For expulsion of seated Members, which requires a two-thirds vote rather
than a majority vote, see article I, section 5, clause 2 (§ 62, infra).
[7]
Both Houses of Congress have decided, when a Member-elect is found

§ 13. Minority
to be disqualified, that the person receiving the next
candidate not seated highest number of votes is not entitled to the seat (I,
when returned 323, 326, 450, 463, 469; VI, 58, 59), even in a case
Member is wherein reasonable notice of the disqualification was
disqualified.
given to the electors (I, 460). In the event of the death
of a Member-elect, the candidate receiving the next highest number of
votes is not entitled to the seat (VI, 152).
3 [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several
§ 14. The old provision
for apportionment of
States which may be included with-
Representatives and
direct taxes.
in this Union, according to their re-
spective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, in-
cluding those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
fifths of all other Persons.] * * *
The part of this clause relating to the mode of apportionment of Rep-
resentatives was changed after the Civil War by section 2 of the 14th
amendment and, as to taxes on incomes without apportionment, by the
16th amendment.
* * * The actual Enumeration shall be made

§ 15. Census as a basis within three Years after the first
of apportionment.
Meeting of the Congress of the
United States, and within every subsequent
Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall
by Law direct. The Number of Representatives
shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,
but each State shall have at Least one Rep-
resentative; and until such enumeration shall be
made, the State of New Hampshire shall be enti-
tled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-
Island and Providence Plantations one, Con-
necticut five, New York six, New Jersey four,
Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland
[8]
six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South

Carolina five, and Georgia three.
The census has been taken decennially since 1790, and, with the excep-
tion of 1920, was followed each time by reapportionment. In the First Con-
gress the House had 65 Members; increased after each census, except that
of 1840, until 435 was reached in 1913 (VI, 39, 40). The Act of June 18,
1929 (46 Stat. 26), as amended by the Act of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat.
761), provides for reapportionment of the existing number (435) among
the States following each new census (VI, 41–43; see 2 U.S.C. 2a). Member-
ship was temporarily increased to 436, then to 437, upon admission of
Alaska (72 Stat. 345) and Hawaii (73 Stat. 8), but returned to 435 on
January 3, 1963, the effective date of the reapportionment under the 18th
Decennial census.
Under the later but not the earlier practice, bills relating to the census
and apportionment are not privileged for consideration (I, 305–308; VI,
48, VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857); Veazie Bank
Court. v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869); Scholey v. Rew,
90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 331 (1874); De Treville v. Smalls,
98 U.S. 517 (1878); Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U.S. 404 (1886);
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (Income Tax case), 157 U.S. 429
(1895); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (Rehearing), 158 U.S. 601
(1895); Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 (1904); Flint v. Stone Tracy
Co. (Corporation Tax cases), 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1920); New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921);
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992); Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S.
452 (2002).
4 When vacancies happen in the Representa-
§ 17. Writs for tion from any State, the Executive
elections to vacancies
in representation. Authority thereof shall issue Writs
of Election to fill such Vacancies.
Vacancies are caused by death, resignation, declination, withdrawal, or
by action of the House in declaring a vacancy as existing or causing one
by expulsion. When a vacancy occurs, or when a new Member is sworn,
the Speaker announces the resulting adjustment in the whole number of
the House pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX (see § 1024b, infra). Clause
5(c) of rule XX permits the House to operate with a provisional number
of the House if the House is without a quorum due to catastrophic cir-
cumstances (see § 1024a, infra). In extraordinary circumstances, section
8 of title 2, United States Code, prescribes special election rules to expedite
the filling of vacancies in representation of the House.
[9]
It was long the practice to notify the executive of the State when a va-
§ 18. Vacancy from
cancy was caused by the death of a Member during
death. a session (II, 1198–1202); but it is now the practice for
State authorities to take cognizance of the vacancies
without notice. When a Member dies while not in attendance in the House
or during a recess, the House is sufficiently informed of the vacancy by
the credentials of the successor, when they set forth the fact of the death
(I, 568). The death of a Member-elect creates a vacancy, although no certifi-
cate may have been awarded (I, 323), and in such a case the candidate
having the next highest number of votes may not receive the credentials
(I, 323; VI 152). A Member whose seat was contested having died, the
House did not admit a claimant with credentials until contestant’s claim
was settled (I, 326); where a contestant died after a report in his favor,
the House unseated the returned Member and declared the seat vacant
(II, 965), and in a later case the contestant having died, the committee
did not recommend to the House a resolution it had agreed to declaring
he had not been elected (VI, 112). In the 93d Congress, when two Members-
elect were passengers on a missing aircraft and were presumed dead, the
Speaker laid before the House documentary evidence of the presumptive
death of one Member-elect and the declaration of a vacancy by the Gov-
ernor, as well as evidence that the status of the other Member-elect had
not been officially determined by State authority. The House then adopted
a privileged resolution declaring vacant the seat of the latter Member-
elect to enable the Governor of that State to call a special election (Jan.
3, 1973, p. 15). For further discussion, see § 23, infra.
In recent practice the Member informs the House by letter that a resigna-
§ 19. Vacancy from
tion has been sent to the State executive (II, 1167–1176)
resignation. and this is satisfactory evidence of the resignation (I,
567). Both a letter to the Speaker and a copy of the
letter to the State executive are laid before the House. However, Members
have resigned by letter to the House alone, it being presumed that the
Member would also notify the Governor (VI, 226). Where a Member re-
signed by letter to the House the Speaker was authorized to notify the
Governor (Nov. 27, 1944, p. 8450; July 12, 1957, p. 11536; Sept. 1, 1976,
p. 28887). If a Member does not inform the House, the State executive
may do so (II, 1193, 1194; VI, 232). The House has learned of a Member’s
resignation by means of the credentials of the successor (II, 1195, 1356).
Where the fact of a Member’s resignation has not appeared either from
the credentials of the successor or otherwise, the Clerk has been ordered
to make inquiry (II, 1209) or the House has ascertained the vacancy from
information given by other Members (II, 1208).
It has been established that a Member or Senator may select a future
date for a resignation to take effect and, until the arrival of that date,
participate in the proceedings (II, 1220–1225, 1228, 1229; VI, 227, 228;
Dec. 15, 1997, p. 26709; June 5, 2001, p. 9882; Nov. 27, 2001, p. 23006;
Jan. 27, 2003, pp. 1750, 1751). It has been possible even for a Member
[10]
to resign a seat in the House to be effective on a date following the antici-

pated date of a special election that might fill the vacancy thereby created
(Deschler, ch. 8, § 9.3). However, the State concerned must be willing to
treat the prospective resignation as a constitutional predicate for the
issuance of a writ of election to fill a vacancy. For examples of resignation
letters indicating that the State executive took cognizance of a prospective
resignation, see January 8, 1952, (p. 14) (New York); July 9, 1991, (p.
17301) (Virginia); June 5, 2001, (p. 9882) (Florida), and Jan. 27, 2003,
(p. 1751) (Texas). When the Governor of Oklahoma received a prospective
resignation from one of its Members, the State provided by statute (enrolled
Senate Bill Number 7X) for the holding of a special election before the
effective date of the resignation (Feb. 28, 2002, p. 2245).
For the State to take cognizance of a prospective resignation, it must
have assurances that there is no possibility of withdrawal (or modification).
In one case a Member who had resigned was not permitted by the House
to withdraw the resignation (II, 1213). However, the House has allowed
withdrawal in the case of defective resignation; that is, in which the Mem-
ber had not actually transmitted the letter of resignation (VI, 229), or had
transmitted it to an improper state official (Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22020). A Mem-
ber may include in a letter of prospective resignation a statement of inten-
tion that the resignation be ‘‘irrevocable’’ in order to allay any concern
about the prospect of withdrawal (June 5, 2001, p. 9882).
Acceptance of the resignation of a Member from the House is unnecessary
(VI, 65, 226), and the refusal of a Governor to accept a resignation cannot
operate to continue membership in the House (VI, 65). Only in a single
exceptional case has the House taken action in the direction of accepting
a resignation (II, 1214). Sometimes Members who have resigned have been
reelected to the same House and taken seats (II, 1210, 1212, 1256; Jan.
28, 1965 and June 16, 1965, pp. 1452, 13774; Jan. 6, 1983 and Feb. 22,
1983, pp. 114, 2575). A Member who has not taken his seat resigned (II,
1231).
A letter of resignation is presented as privileged (II, 1167–1176); but
a resolution to permit a Member to withdraw a resignation was not so
treated (II, 1213). The Speaker having been elected Vice President and
a Representative of the succeeding Congress at the same election, trans-
mitted to the Governor of his State his resignation as a Member-elect (VI,
230, 453). A Member of the House having been nominated and confirmed
as Vice President pursuant to the 25th amendment, submitted a letter
of resignation as a Representative to the Governor of his State, and a
copy of his letter of resignation was laid before the House by the Speaker
following the completion of a joint meeting for his swearing as Vice Presi-
dent (Dec. 6, 1973, p. 39927). A Member of the House having been con-
firmed as Secretary of Defense, a copy of his letter of resignation was laid
before the House before his taking the oath of that office (Mar. 20, 1989,
p. 4976).
[11]
A Member who has been elected to a seat may decline to accept it, and
§ 20. Vacancy from
in such a case the House informed the executive of the
declination. State of the vacancy (II, 1234). The House has decided
an election contest against a returned Member who had
not appeared to claim the seat (I, 638). In one instance a Member-elect
who had been convicted in the courts did not appear during the term (IV,
4484, footnote). On November 7, 1998, less than a week after his re-election
as Representative from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich announced that he
would not be a candidate for Speaker in the 106th Congress and that he
would resign his seat as a Member of the 106th Congress. Although the
letter of ‘‘withdrawal’’ was tendered on November 22, the Governor did
not attempt to call a special election until after the term began on January
3, 1999 (Jan. 6, 1999, p. 42). A Member notified the Speaker and the Gov-
ernor in one Congress that he did not intend to take his seat in the next
Congress (Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
At the time of the secession of several States, Members of the House
§ 21. Vacancy by
from those States withdrew (II, 1218). In the Senate,
withdrawal. in cases of such withdrawals, the Secretary was di-
rected to omit the names of the Senators from the roll
(II, 1219), and the act of withdrawal was held to create a vacancy that
the legislature might recognize (I, 383).
If the House, by its action in a question of election or otherwise, creates
§ 22. Vacancy by
a vacancy, the Speaker is directed to notify the Execu-
action of the House. tive of the State (I, 502, 709, 824; II, 1203–1205; Mar.
1, 1967, p. 5038; Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15; Feb. 24, 1981,
pp. 2916–18). A resolution as to such notification is presented as a question
of privilege (III, 2589), as is a resolution declaring a vacancy in which
a Member-elect was unable to take the oath of office or to decline the
office because of an incapacitating illness (Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916–18).
The House declines to give prima facie effect to credentials, even though
§ 23. Questions as to
they be regular in form, until it has ascertained wheth-
the existence of a er or not the seat is vacant (I, 322, 518, 565, 569), and
vacancy. a person returned as elected at a second election was
unseated on ascertainment that another person had ac-
tually been chosen at the first election (I, 646). Where a Member was re-
elected to the House, although at the time of the election he had been
unaccounted for for several weeks following the disappearance of the plane
on which he was a passenger, the Governor of the State from which he
was elected transmitted his certificate to the House in the regular fashion.
When the Member-elect was still missing at the time the new Congress
convened, and circumstances were such that other passengers on the miss-
ing plane had been presumed dead following judicial inquiries in the State
where the plane was lost, the House declared the seat vacant (H. Res.
1, 93d Cong., Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15). In the 108th Congress the House codified
in clause 5 of rule XX its practice of accounting for vacancies (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
[12]
The term ‘‘vacancy’’ as occurring in this paragraph of the Constitution

§ 24. Functions of the
has been examined in relation to the functions of the
State executive (I, 312, 518). A Federal law empowers
State ecutive in filling
vacancies. the States and Territories to provide by law the times
of elections to fill vacancies (I, 516; 2 U.S.C. 8); but
an election called by a governor in pursuance of constitutional authority
was held valid although no State law prescribed the time, place, or manner
of such election (I, 517). Where two candidates had an equal number of
votes, the governor did not issue credentials to either, but ordered a new
election after they had waived their respective claims (I, 555). A candidate
elected for the 104th Congress was appointed by the Governor to fill a
vacancy for the remainder of the 103d Congress pursuant to a State law
requiring the Governor to appoint the candidate who won the election to
the 104th Congress. In that case the House authorized the Speaker to
administer the oath to the Member-elect and referred the question of his
final right to the seat in the 103d Congress to the Committee on House
Administration (Nov. 29, 1994, pp. 29585, 29586). For a discussion of a
State election to fill a prospective vacancy of the House, see § 19.
A Member elected to fill a vacancy serves no longer
§ 25. Term of a
Member elected to fill
time than the remainder of the term of the Member
a vacancy. whose place he fills (I, 3). For the compensation and
allowances of such Members, see § 87, infra.
5 The House of Representatives
§ 26. House chooses
the Speaker and other
officers.
shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; * * *
The officers of the House are the Speaker, who has always been one
of its Members and whose term as Speaker must expire with the term
as a Member; and the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Offi-
cer, and Chaplain (I, 187), no one of whom has ever been chosen from
the sitting membership of the House and who continue in office until their
successors are chosen and qualified (I, 187). In one case the officers contin-
ued through the entire Congress succeeding that in which they were elected
(I, 244, 263). Former officers include Doorkeeper (abolished by the 104th
Congress, see § 663a, infra) and Postmaster (abolished during the 102d
Congress, see § 668, infra). The House formerly provided by special rule
that the Clerk should continue in office until another should be chosen
(I, 187, 188, 235, 244). Currently, certain statutes impose on the officers
duties that contemplate their continuance (I, 14, 15; 2 U.S.C. 75a–1, 83).
The Speaker, who was at first elected by ballot, has been chosen viva
§ 27. Election of a
voce by surname in response to a call of the roll since
Speaker. 1839 (I, 187). The Speaker is elected by a majority of
Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being
present (I, 216; VI, 24; Jan. 7, 1997, p. 117). The Clerk appoints tellers
for this election (I, 217). Ultimately, the House, and not the Clerk, decides
[13]
§ 28 [ARTICLE I, SECTION 2]
by what method it shall elect the Speaker (I, 210). On two occasions, by
special rules, Speakers were chosen by a plurality of votes; but in each
case the House by majority vote adopted a resolution declaring the result
(I, 221, 222). The House has declined to choose a Speaker by lot (I, 221).
The motion to proceed to the election of a Speaker is privileged (I, 212,
214; VIII, 3883), and debatable unless the previous question is ordered
(I, 213). Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recog-
nized for nominations for Speaker as being of higher constitutional privi-
lege than a resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead
provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending the disposition
of certain ethics charges against the nominee of the majority party (Jan.
7, 1997, p. 115). On several occasions the choice of a Speaker has been
delayed for several weeks by contests (I, 222; V, 5356, 6647, 6649; VI,
24). The contest over the election of a Speaker in 1923 was resolved after
a procedure for the adoption of rules for the 68th Congress had been pre-
sented (VI, 24). In 1860 the voting for Speaker proceeded slowly, being
interspersed with debate (I, 223), and in one instance the House asked
candidates for Speaker to state their views before proceeding to election
(I, 218).
A proposition to elect a Speaker is in order at any time a vacancy exists
§ 28. Vacancies in the
and presents a question of the highest privilege (VIII,
Office of Speaker. 3383). Upon a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the
House elects a new Speaker either viva voce following
nominations (in the case in which a Speaker has died between sessions
of Congress or resigned) or by resolution (in the case in which a Speaker
has died during a session of Congress). For example, in the case in which
the Speaker had died between sessions of Congress, the Clerk at the next
session called the House to order, ascertained the presence of a quorum,
and then the House proceeded to elect a successor viva voce following nomi-
nations (I, 234; Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). In a case in which the Speaker died
during a session of Congress, but not while the House was sitting, the
Clerk on the following day called the House to order and the Speaker’s
successor was elected by resolution (June 4, 1936, p. 9016; Sept. 16, 1940,
p. 12231). In a case in which the Speaker resigned ‘‘on the election of
my successor’’ (May 31, 1989, p. 10440), he entertained nominations for
Speaker and, following the roll call, declared the winner of the election
‘‘duly elected Speaker’’ (June 6, 1989, p. 10801). In one instance a Speaker
resigned on the last day of the Congress, and the House unanimously
adopted a motion to elect a successor for the day (I, 225).
Form of resolution offered on death of a Speaker (Sept. 16, 1940, p. 12232;
Jan. 10, 1962, p. 9) and of a former Speaker (VIII, 3564; Mar. 7, 1968,
p. 5742; H. Res. 328, Jan. 25, 1994, p. 89; H. Res. 418, Feb. 8, 2000, p.
834). A resolution declaring vacant the Office of Speaker is presented as
a matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). Speakers have resigned
by rising in their place and addressing the House (I, 231, 233), by calling
a Member to the Chair and tendering the resignation verbally from the
[14]
floor (I, 225), by tendering the resignation during recognition under a ques-
tion of personal privilege (May 31, 1989, p. 10440), or by sending a letter
that the Clerk reads to the House at the beginning of a new session (I,
232). When the Speaker resigns no action of the House excusing him from
service is taken (I, 232). Instance wherein the Speaker, following a vote
upon an essential question indicating a change in the party control of the
House, announced that under the circumstances it was incumbent upon
the Speaker to resign or to recognize for a motion declaring vacant the
Office of Speaker (VI, 35). In the 108th Congress the House adopted clause
8(b)(3) of rule I, under which the Speaker is required to deliver to the
Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker
pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker (sec. 2(a),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). The Speaker delivered to the Clerk the first
such letter on February 10, 2003 (Mar. 13, 2003, p. 6118).
The effect of a law to regulate the action of the House
§ 29. Power of House
to elect its officers as
in choosing its own officers has been discussed (IV,
related to law. 3819), and such a law has been considered of doubtful
validity (V, 6765, 6766) in theory and practice (I, 241,
242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 75a–1) author-
izes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies in the offices of Clerk, Ser-
geant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chaplain. For a history
of the Speaker’s exercise of such authority, see § 640, infra; and, for further
information on the elections of officers, see Deschler, ch. 6.
It has been held that the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25) bound the
§ 30. Election of Clerk
House to elect a Clerk before proceeding to business
in relation to (I, 237, 241). In some instances the House has pro-
business. ceeded to legislation and other business before electing
a Clerk (I, 242, 244). When a vacancy arises in the Of-
fice of Clerk during a session, business has intervened before the election
of a new Clerk (I, 239).
* * * and [the House of Representatives] shall

§ 31. House of have the sole Power of Impeach-
Representatives alone
impeaches. ment.
In 1868 the Senate ceased in its rules to describe the House, acting
in an impeachment, as the ‘‘grand inquest of the nation’’ (III, 2126). See
also art. II, sec. 4 (§ 173, infra); Deschler, ch. 14.
A Federal court having subpoenaed certain evidence gathered by a com-
mittee of the House in an impeachment inquiry, the House adopted a reso-
lution granting such limited access to the evidence as would not infringe
upon its sole power of impeachment (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30047).
Until the law expired on June 30, 1999, an independent counsel was
required to advise the House of any substantial and credible information
that may constitute grounds for impeachment of an officer under investiga-
tion (28 U.S.C. 595(c)). For a description of impeachment proceedings
[15]
prompted by a communication from an independent counsel, see § 176,

infra.
SECTION 3. 1 [The Senate of the United States

§ 32. Numbers, terms, shall be composed of two Senators
and votes of Senators.
from each State, chosen by the Leg-
islature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator
shall have one Vote.]
This provision was changed by the 17th amendment.
2 Immediately after they shall be assembled in
Consequence of the first Election,
§ 33. Division of the
Senate into classes.
they shall be divided as equally as
may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Sen-
ators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second
Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth
§ 34. Filling of Year, so that one-third may be cho-
vacancies in the
Senate. sen every second Year; [and if Va-
cancies happen by Resignation, or
otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature
of any State, the Executive thereof may make
temporary Appointments until the next Meeting
of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Va-
cancies.]
That part of the above paragraph in brackets was changed by the 17th
amendment.
3 No
Person shall be a Senator who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty
§ 35. Qualifications of
Senators.
Years, and been nine Years a Cit-
izen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for
which he shall be chosen.
[16]
In 1794 the Senate decided that Albert Gallatin was disqualified, not
having been a citizen nine years although he had served in the war of
Independence and was a resident of the country when the Constitution
was formed (I, 428); and in 1849 that James Shields was disqualified, not
having been a citizen for the required time (I, 429). But in 1870 the Senate
declined to examine as to H. R. Revels, a citizen under the recently adopted
14th amendment (I, 430). As to inhabitancy the Senate seated one who,
being a citizen of the United States, had been an inhabitant of the State
from which he was appointed for less than a year (I, 437). Also one who,
while stationed in a State as an army officer had declared his intention
of making his home in the State, was admitted by the Senate (I, 438).
A Senator who at the time of his election was actually residing in the
District of Columbia as an officeholder, but who voted in his old home
and had no intent of making the District his domicile, was held to be quali-
fied (I, 439).
4 The Vice President of the United States shall
§ 36. The Vice be President of the Senate, but
President; voting.
shall have no Vote, unless they be
equally divided.
The right of the Vice President to vote has been construed to extend
to questions relating to the organization of the Senate (V, 5975), as the
election of officers of the Senate (V, 5972–5974), or a decision on the title
of a claimant to a seat (V, 5976, 5977). The Senate has declined to make
a rule relating to the vote of the Vice President (V, 5974).
5 The
Senate shall chuse their
§ 37. Choice of
other Officers, and also a President

President pro tempore
and other officers of
the Senate. pro tempore, in the Absence of the
Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Of-
fice of President of the United States.
In the 107th Congress the Senate elected two Presidents of the Senate
pro tempore for different periods when the majority of the Senate shifted
after inauguration of the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 7).
6 The
Senate shall have the sole Power to try
all Impeachments. When sitting for
§ 38. Senate tries
impeachment and
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath
convicts by two-thirds
vote.
or Affirmation. When the President
of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted
[17]
without the Concurrence of two thirds of the

Members present.
For the exclusive power of the Senate to try impeachments under the
United States Constitution, see Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cl. 293
(1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668 (1937). See also Mississippi v. Johnson,
71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867) (dictum). For the nonjusticiability of a claim
that a Senate impeachment rule (XI) violates the impeachment trial clause
by delegating to a committee of 12 Senators the responsibility to receive
evidence, hear testimony, and report to the Senate thereon, see Nixon v.
United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). For a discussion of Senate impeach-
ment procedures, see §§ 608–20, infra.
7 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not
§ 41. Judgment in extend further than to removal
cases of impeachment.
from Office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject
to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
There has been discussion as to whether or not the Constitution requires
both removal and disqualification on conviction (III, 2397); but in the case
of Pickering, the Senate decreed only removal (III, 2341). In the case of
Humphreys, judgment of both removal and disqualification was pro-
nounced (III, 2397). In the Ritter case, it was first held that upon conviction
of the respondent, judgment of removal required no vote, following auto-
matically from conviction under article II, section 4 (Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607).
In the 99th Congress, having tried to conviction the first impeachment
case against a Federal district judge since 1936, the Senate ordered his
removal from office (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29870). In the 101st Congress, two
other Federal district judges were removed from office following their con-
victions in the Senate (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101).
In the 111th Congress, a Federal district judge was removed from office
following his conviction in the Senate (Dec. 8, 2010, p. l). For a further
discussion of judgments in cases of impeachment, see § 619, infra.
SECTION 4. 1 The Times, Places and Manner of

§ 42. Times, places, holding Elections for Senators and
and manner of
elections of Representatives, shall be prescribed
Representatives and
Senators.
in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at
[18]
any time by Law make or alter such Regula-

tions, except as to the places of chusing Sen-
ators.
The relative powers of the Congress and the States under this paragraph
have been the subject of much discussion (I, 311, 313, 507, footnote); but
Congress has in fact fixed by law the time of elections (I, 508; VI, 66;
2 U.S.C. 7), and has controlled the manner to the extent of prescribing
a ballot or voting machine (II, 961; VI, 150; 2 U.S.C. 9). When a State
delegated to a municipality the power to regulate the manner of holding
an election, a question arose (II, 975). A question has arisen as to whether
or not a State, in the absence of action by Congress, might make the time
of election of Congressmen contingent on the time of the State election
(I, 522). This paragraph gives Congress the power to protect the right to
vote in primaries in which they are an integral part of the election process.
United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930); United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299 (1941). Congress may legislate under this paragraph to pro-
tect the exercise of the franchise in congressional elections. Ex parte
Siebolt, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).
The meaning of the word ‘‘legislature’’ in this clause of the Constitution
has been the subject of discussion (II, 856), as to wheth-
§ 43. Functions of a
State legislature in er or not it means a constitutional convention as well
fixing time, etc., of as a legislature in the commonly accepted meaning of
elections. the word (I, 524). The House has sworn in Members
chosen at an election the time, etc., of which was fixed
by the schedule of a constitution adopted on that election day (I, 519, 520,
522). But the House held that where a legislature has been in existence
a constitutional convention might not exercise the power (I, 363, 367). It
has been argued generally that the legislature derives the power herein
discussed from the Federal and not the State Constitution (II, 856, 947),
and therefore that the State constitution might not in this respect control
the State legislature (II, 1133). The House has sustained this view by its
action (I, 525). But where the State constitution fixed a date for an election
and the legislature had not acted, although it had the opportunity, the
House held the election valid (II, 846). Title III of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2006, amended Federal election law to require States
to hold special elections for the House within 49 days after a vacancy is
announced by the Speaker in the extraordinary circumstance that vacan-
cies in representation from the States exceed 100 (P.L. 109–55; 2 U.S.C.
8).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Ex parte Siebold,
100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Clark, 100 U.S. 399
Court. (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); In
re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888); Ohio v. Hildebrant, 241
U.S. 565 (1916); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915); United
States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Newberry v. United States, 256
[19]
U.S. 232 (1921); Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); United States v.
Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944);
Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724
(1974); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.
Thorton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). In
Public Law 91–285, Congress lowered the minimum age of voters in all
Federal, State, and local elections from 21 to 18 years. In Oregon v. Mitch-
ell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress
under article I, section 4 and under section 5 of the 14th amendment to
the Constitution to fix the age of voters in Federal elections, but held that
the 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved to the States the power
to establish voter age qualifications in State and local elections. The 26th
amendment to the Constitution extended the right of persons 18 years
of age or older to vote in elections held under State authority.
2 [The Congress shall assemble at least once in
§ 45. Annual meeting every Year, and such Meeting shall
of Congress.
be on the first Monday in Decem-
ber, unless they shall by Law appoint a different
Day.]
This provision has been superseded by the 20th amendment.
In the later but not the earlier practice (I, 5), before the 20th amendment,
the fact that Congress had met once within the year did not make uncertain
the constitutional mandate to meet on the first Monday of December (I,
6, 9–11). Early Congresses, convened either by proclamation or law on
a day earlier than the constitutional day, remained in continuous session
to a time beyond that day (I, 6, 9–11). But in the later view an existing
session ends with the day appointed by the Constitution for the regular
annual session (II, 1160); see § 84, infra. Congress has frequently appointed
by law a day for the meeting (I, 4, 5, 10–12, footnote; see also § 243, infra).
SECTION 5. 1 Each House shall be the Judge of

§ 46. House the judge the Elections, Returns and Quali-
of elections, returns,
and qualifications. fications of its own Members, * * *.
In judging the qualifications of its Members, the House may not add
qualifications to those expressly stated in the United States Constitution.
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). This phrase allows the House
or Senate to deny the right to a seat without unlawfully depriving a State
of its right to equal representation. Barry v. United States ex rel
Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929). But a State may conduct a recount
of votes without interfering with the authority of the House under this
phrase. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972). For discussion of the
power of the House to judge elections, see Deschler, ch. 8 (elections) and
[20]
ch. 9 (election contests); for discussion of the power of the House to judge
qualifications, see Deschler, ch. 7.
The House has the same authority to determine the right of a Delegate
to a seat that it has in the case of a Member (I, 423). The House may
not delegate the duty of judging its elections to another tribunal (I, 608),
and the courts of a State have no role in such matters (II, 959). The House
has once examined the relations of this power to the power to expel (I,
469).
As nearly all the laws governing the elections of Representatives in Con-
§ 47. Power of judging
gress are State laws, questions have often arisen as
as related to State to the relation of this power of judging to those laws
laws as to returns. (I, 637). The House decided very early that the certifi-
cate of a State executive issued in strict accordance
with State law does not prevent examination of the votes by the House
and a reversal of the return (I, 637). The House has also held that it is
not confined to the conclusions of returns made up in strict conformity
to State law, but may examine the votes and correct the returns (I, 774);
and the fact that a State law gives canvassers the right to reject votes
for fraud and irregularities does not preclude the House from going behind
the returns (II, 887). The highest court in one State (Colorado) has ruled
that it lacked jurisdiction to pass upon a candidate’s allegations of irreg-
ularities in a primary election and that the House had exclusive jurisdiction
to decide such questions and to declare the rightful nominee (Sept. 23,
1970, p. 33320).
When the question concerns not the acts of returning officers, but the
§ 48. Power of judging
act of the voter in voting, the House has found more
as related to State difficulty in determining the proper exercise of its con-
laws as to acts of the stitutional power. Although the House has always acted
voter. on the principle of giving expression to the intent of
the voter (I, 575, 639, 641; II, 1090), it has held that
a mandatory State law, even though arbitrary, may cause the rejection
of a ballot on which the intent of the voter is plain (II, 1009, 1056, 1077,
1078, 1091). See Deschler, ch. 8, § 8.11, for discussion of distinction between
directory State laws governing the conduct of election officials as to ballots,
and mandatory laws regulating the conduct of voters.
Where the State courts have upheld a State election law as constitutional
§ 49. Power of House
the House does not ordinarily question the law (II, 856,
as related to 1071). But if there has been no such decision the House,
constitutionality of in determining its election cases, has passed on the va-
State laws. lidity of State laws under State constitutions (II, 1011,
1134), and has acted on its decision that they were un-
constitutional (II, 1075, 1126), but it is not the policy of the House to pass
upon the validity of State election laws alleged to be in conflict with the
State constitution (VI, 151).
[21]
The courts of a State do not have a direct role in judging the elections,
qualifications, and returns of Representatives in Con-
§ 50. Effect of
interpretation of State gress (II, 959), but where the highest State court has
election laws by State interpreted the State law the House has concluded that
courts. it should generally be governed by this interpretation
(I, 645, 731; II, 1041, 1048), but does not consider itself
bound by such interpretations (VI, 58). The House is not bound, however,
by a decision on an analogous but not the identical question in issue (II,
909); and where the alleged fraud of election judges was in issue, the acquit-
tal of those judges in the courts was held not to be an adjudication binding
on the House (II, 1019). For a recent illustration of a protracted election
dispute lasting four months see House Report 99–58, culminating in House
Resolution 146 of the 99th Congress (May 1, 1985, p. 9998).
The statutes of the United States provide specific methods for institution
of a contest as to the title to a seat in the House (I,
§ 51. Laws of Congress
not binding on the 678, 697–706) (2 U.S.C. 381–396); but the House re-
House in its function gards this law as not of absolute binding force, but rath-
of judging its er a prudent rule not to be departed from except for
elections.
cause (I, 597, 719, 825, 833), and it sometimes by reso-
lution modifies the procedure prescribed by the law (I, 449, 600).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: In re Loney, 134
§ 51a. Decisions of the
U.S. 317 (1890); Reed v. County Commissioners, 277
Court. U.S. 376 (1928); Barry v. United States ex rel.
Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Roudebush v.
Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972).
* * * and a Majority of each [House] shall

constitute a Quorum to do Busi-
§ 52. The quorum.
ness; but a smaller Number may

adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized
to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in
such Manner, and under such Penalties as each
House may provide.
Out of conditions arising between 1861 and 1891 the rule was established
that a majority of the Members chosen and living con-
§ 53. Interpretation of
stituted the quorum required by the Constitution (IV,
the Constitution as to
number constituting a2885–2888); but later examination has resulted in a
quorum. decision confirming in the House of Representatives the
construction established in the Senate that a quorum
consists of a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn (I, 630; IV, 2891–
2894). So the decision of the House now is that after the House is once
organized the quorum consists of a majority of those Members chosen,
sworn, and living whose membership has not been terminated by resigna-
tion or by the action of the House (IV, 2889, 2890; VI, 638). Under clause
[22]
5(d) of rule XX, when a vacancy occurs or when a new Member is sworn,
the Speaker announces the resulting adjustment in the whole number of
the House (see § 1024b, infra). Under clause 5(c) of rule XX, the House
may establish a provisional number of the House where, due to catastrophic
circumstances, a quorum fails to appear (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 43; see § 1024a, infra).
For many years a quorum was determined only by noting the number
§ 54. The theory of the
of Members voting (IV, 2896, 2897), with the result that
quorum present; and Members by refusing to vote could often break a
the count by the quorum and obstruct the public business (II, 1034; IV,
Speaker. 2895, footnote; V, 5744). However, in 1890 Speaker
Reed directed the Clerk to enter on the Journal as part
of the record of a yea-and-nay vote names of Members present but not
voting, thereby establishing a quorum of record (IV, 2895). This decision,
which was upheld by the Supreme Court (IV, 2904; United States v. Ballin,
144 U.S. 1 (1892)), established the principle that a quorum present made
valid any action by the House, although an actual quorum might not vote
(I, 216, footnote; IV, 2932). Thenceforth the point of order as to a quorum
was required to be that no quorum was present and not that no quorum
had voted (IV, 2917). At the time of the establishment of this principle
the Speaker revived the count by the Chair as a method of determining
the presence of a quorum at a time when no record vote was ordered (IV,
2909). The Speaker has permitted his count of a quorum to be verified
by tellers (IV, 2888), but has not conceded it as a right of the House to
have tellers under the circumstances (IV, 2916; VI, 647–651; VIII, 2369,
2436), claiming that the Chair might determine the presence of a quorum
in such manner as he should deem accurate and suitable (IV, 2932). The
Chair counts all Members in sight, whether in the cloak rooms, or within
the bar (IV, 2970; VIII, 3120). Later, as the complement to the new view
of the quorum, the early theory that the presence of a quorum was as
necessary during debate or other business as on a vote was revived (IV,
2935–2949). Also, a line of rulings made under the old theory was over-
ruled; and it was established that the point of no quorum might be made
after the House had declined to verify a division by tellers or the yeas
and nays (IV, 2918–2926). For a discussion of the Ballin decision and the
Chair’s count to determine a quorum, see House Practice, ch. 43, § 5.
The absence of a quorum having been disclosed, there must be a quorum
§ 55. Relations of the
of record before the House may proceed to business (IV,
quorum to acts of the 2952, 2953; VI, 624, 660, 662), and the point of no
House. quorum may not be withdrawn even by unanimous con-
sent after the absence of a quorum has been ascertained
and announced by the Chair (IV, 2928–2931; VI, 657; Apr. 13, 1978, p.
10119; Sept. 25, 1984, p. 26778). But when an action has been completed,
it is too late to make the point of order that a quorum was not present
when it was done (IV, 2927; VI, 655). But where action requiring a quorum
was taken in the ascertained absence of a quorum by ruling of a Speaker
[23]
pro tempore, the Speaker on the next day ruled that the action was null
and void (IV, 2964; see also VIII, 3161). But such absence of a quorum
should appear from the Journal if a legislative act is to be vacated for
such reason (IV, 2962), and where the assumption that a quorum was
present when the House acted was uncontradicted by the Journal, it was
held that this assumption might not be overthrown by expressions of opin-
ion by Members individually (IV, 2961).
Major revisions in the House rules concerning the necessity and estab-
lishment of a quorum occurred in the 94th, 95th, and 96th Congresses.
Under the practice in the 93d Congress, for example, a point of no quorum
would prevent the report of the chair of a Committee of the Whole (VI,
666); but in the 93d Congress clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6 of
rule XV) was adopted to provide that after the presence of a quorum is
once ascertained on any day, a point of no quorum could not be entertained
after the Committee had risen and pending the report of the chair to the
House. Clause 7 of rule XX now specifically precludes a point of no quorum
unless a question has been put to a vote. However, the Speaker retains
the right to recognize a Member to move a call of the House at any time
(but may, under clause 7(c) of rule XX recognize for a call of the House
after the previous question has been ordered only when the Speaker deter-
mines by actual count that a quorum is not present). A point of order
of no quorum during debate only in the House does not lie independently
under this clause of the Constitution because clause 7 of rule XX (formerly
clause 6 of rule XV) is a proper exercise of the House’s constitutional rule-
making authority that can be interpreted consistently with the require-
ment that a quorum be present to conduct business (as opposed to mere
debate) (Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28114; Sept. 12, 1977, p. 28800).
Before these changes to rule XX (formerly rule XV), a quorum was re-
quired at all times during the reading of the Journal (IV, 2732, 2733; VI,
625, 629) or messages from the President or the Senate (IV, 3522); but
the modern practice would require the presence of a quorum only when
the question is put on a pending motion or proposition in the House such
as on a motion incident to the reading, amendment, or approval of the
Journal or on the referral or other disposition of other papers read to the
House. The practice in the Committee of the Whole is now governed by
clause 6 of rule XVIII. No motion is in order on the failure of a quorum
but the motions to adjourn and for a call of the House (IV, 2950; VI, 680)
and the motion to adjourn has precedence over the motion for a call of
the House (VIII, 2642). A call of the House is in order under the Constitu-
tion before the adoption of the rules (IV, 2981). Those present on a call
of the House may prescribe a fine as a condition on which an arrested
Member may be discharged (IV, 3013, 3014), but this is rarely done. A
quorum is not required on motions incidental to a call of the House (IV,
2994; VI, 681; Oct. 8, 1940, p. 13403; Oct. 8, 1968, p. 30090). Adjournment
sine die is in order notwithstanding the absence of a quorum if both Houses
[24]
have already adopted a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment

sine die on that day (Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37200).
At the time of organization the two Houses inform one another of the
appearance of the quorum in each, and the two Houses
quorum to jointly inform the President (I, 198–203). A message
organization of the from one House that its quorum has appeared is not
House. delivered in the other until a quorum has appeared
there also (I, 126). But at the beginning of a second
session of a Congress the House proceeded to business, although a quorum
had not appeared in the Senate (I, 126). At the beginning of a second
session of a Congress unsworn Members-elect were taken into account in
ascertaining the presence of a quorum (I, 175); however, at the beginning
of the second session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House
to order, announced the death of Speaker Rayburn during the adjournment
sine die, and did not call unsworn Members-elect or Members who had
resigned during the hiatus to establish a quorum or elect a new Speaker
(Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). In both Houses the oath has been administered to
Members-elect in the absence of a quorum (I, 174, 181, 182; VI, 22), al-
though in one case the Speaker objected to such proceedings (II, 875). Pray-
er by the Chaplain is not business requiring the presence of a quorum
and the Speaker declines to entertain a point of no quorum before prayer
is offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thomp-
son, 103 U.S. 190 (1880); United States v. Ballin, 144
Court. U.S. 1 (1892); Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344
(1906).
2 Each House may determine the
§ 58. The House
determines its rules.
Rules of its Proceedings, * * *
The power of each House of Representatives to make its own rules may
§ 59. Power to make
not be impaired or controlled by the rules of a preceding
House (I, 187, 210; V, 6002, 6743–6747), or by a law
rules not impaired by
rules or law. passed by a prior Congress (I, 82, 245; IV, 3298, 3579;
V, 6765, 6766). The House in adopting its rules may,
however, incorporate by reference as a part thereof all applicable provisions
of law that constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the preceding
Congress (e.g., H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) and has
also incorporated provisions of concurrent resolutions that were intended
to remain applicable under the Budget Act (e.g., H. Res. 5, 107th Cong.,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The House twice reaffirmed free-standing directives
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) contained
in a simple House resolution (H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., p. 19317, reaffirmed
for the 106th Congress by sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47, and
reaffirmed for the 107th Congress with an exception by sec. 3(a), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; see § 806, infra). In the 108th Congress those free-
standing directives were codified in clause 3 of rule XI (sec. 2(h), H. Res.
[25]
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Ordinary rights and functions of the House under
the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules (III, 2567),
and under later decisions questions of so-called constitutional privilege
should also be considered in accordance with the rules (VI, 48; VII, 889;
Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147). But a law passed by an existing Congress with
the concurrence of the House has been recognized by that House as of
binding force in matters of procedure (V, 6767, 6768). In exercising its
constitutional power to change its rules the House may confine itself within
certain limitations (V, 6756; VIII, 3376); but the attempt of the House
to deprive the Speaker of a vote as a Member by a rule was successfully
resisted (V, 5966, 5967). Although the Act of June 1, 1789 (see 2 U.S.C.
25) requires the election of a Clerk before the House proceeds to business,
the House has held that it may adopt rules before electing a Clerk (I,
245). Although the Speaker ceases to be an officer of the House with the
expiration of a Congress, the Clerk, by old usage, continues in a new Con-
gress (I, 187, 188, 235, 244; see 2 U.S.C. 26). The House has adopted a
rule before election of a Speaker (I, 94, 95); but in 1839 was deterred by
the Act of June 1, 1789 and the Constitution from adopting rules before
the administration of the oath to Members-elect (I, 140). The earlier theory
that an officer might be empowered to administer oaths by a rule of either
House has been abandoned in later practice and the authority has been
conferred by law (III, 1823, 1824, 2079, 2303, 2479; 2 U.S.C. 191).
Before the adoption of rules the House is governed by general parliamen-
§ 60. Procedure in the
tary law, but Speakers have been inclined to give
House before the weight to the rules and precedents of the House in
adoption of rules. modifying the usual constructions of that law (V, 5604,
6758–6760; VIII, 3384; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24; Jan. 10,
1967, p. 14). The general parliamentary law as understood in the House
is founded on Jefferson’s Manual as modified by the practice of American
legislative assemblies, especially of the House of Representatives (V, 6761–
6763; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24), but the provisions of the House’s accustomed
rules are not necessarily followed (V, 5509). Before the adoption of rules,
the statutory enactments incorporated into the rules of the prior Congress
as an exercise of the rulemaking power do not control the proceedings
of the new House until it adopts rules incorporating those provisions (Jan.
22, 1971, p. 132).
Before the adoption of rules, it is in order for any Member who is recog-
nized by the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of business
without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060). Relying on the Act of June
1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker
as being of higher constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone
the election of a Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker
pro tempore pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the
nominee of the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115). The Speaker may
recognize the Majority Leader to offer an initial resolution providing for
the adoption of the rules as a question of privilege in its own right (IV,
[26]
3060; Deschler, ch. 1, § 8), even before recognizing another Member to offer
as a question of privilege another resolution calling into question the con-
stitutionality of that resolution (Speaker Foley, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). The
Speaker also may recognize a Member to offer for immediate consideration
a special order providing for the consideration of a resolution adopting
the rules (Speaker Gingrich, H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 447; H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 7). The resolution adopting rules for a Congress has in-
cluded a special order of business for consideration of specified legislation
(sec. 108, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463; sec. 3, H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 76; secs. 506–510, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 30; sec. 5, H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. l). The Speaker held as not cognizable a point of order that
a resolution adopting the Rules of the House contained a provision that
the House had no constitutional authority to adopt, stating that the House
decides such issues by way of the question of consideration or disposition
of the resolution (Speaker Hastert, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. 44–46).
During debate on the resolution adopting rules, any Member may make
a point of order that a quorum is not present based upon general parliamen-
tary precedents, because the provisions of clause 7 of rule XX (formerly
clause 6(e) of rule XV) prohibiting the Chair from entertaining such a point
of order unless the question has been put on the pending proposition are
not yet applicable (Jan. 15, 1979, p. 10). Before adoption of rules, under
general parliamentary law as modified by usage and practice of the House,
an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not germane
to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). Before adoption
of rules, the Speaker may maintain decorum by directing a Member who
has not been recognized in debate beyond an allotted time to be removed
from the well and by directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to present the mace
as the traditional symbol of order (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 58).
The motion to commit is permitted after the previous question has been
ordered on the resolution adopting the rules (V, 5604; Jan. 3, 1989, p.
81; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 61) but is not debatable (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 139). It is
the prerogative of the minority to offer a motion to commit even before
the adoption of the rules, but at that point the proponent need not qualify
as opposed to the resolution (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 61; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 457).
Such a motion to commit is not divisible, but if it is agreed to and more
than one amendment is reported back pursuant thereto, then separate
votes may be had on the reported amendments (Jan. 5, 1993, p. 98). The
motion to refer has also been permitted upon the offering of a resolution
adopting the rules, and before debate thereon, subject to the motion to
lay on the table (Jan. 5, 1993, p. 52; Jan. 5, 2011, l).
The two Houses of Congress adopted in the early years of the Govern-
§ 61. Joint rules.
ment joint rules to govern their procedure in matters
requiring concurrent action; but in 1876 these joint
rules were abrogated (IV, 3430; V, 6782–6787). The most useful of their
provision continued to be observed in practice, however (IV, 3430; V, 6592).
[27]
§ 61a–§ 63 [ARTICLE I, SECTION 5]
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: United States v.

Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932); Christoffel v. United States,
Court. 338 U.S. 84 (1949); United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S.
323 (1950); Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963);
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
* * * [Each House may] punish its Members

for disorderly Behaviour, and, with
§ 62. Punishment and
expulsion of Members.
the Concurrence of two thirds, expel
a Member.
Among the punishments that the House may impose under this provi-
§ 63. Punishment and
sion, the rules of the Committee on Ethics outline the
expulsion, generally. following: (1) expulsion from the House; (2) censure;
(3) reprimand; (4) fine; (5) denial or limitation of any
right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if not in violation of
the Constitution; or (6) any other sanction determined by the Committee
to be appropriate (rule 24, Committee on Ethics, 112th Cong.). Under rule
10 of the rules of that committee, a statement of alleged violation must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In action for censure or expulsion, the House has discussed whether
or not the principles of the procedure of the courts should be followed (II,
1255, 1264). The House, in a proceeding for expulsion, declined to give
the Member a trial at the bar (II, 1275); but the Senate has permitted
a counsel to appear at its bar (II, 1263), although it declined to grant
a request for a specific statement of charges or compulsory process for
witnesses (II, 1264). In one instance, pending consideration of a resolution
to censure a Member, the Speaker informed him that he should retire
(II, 1366), but this is not usual. Members or Senators, against whom resolu-
tions have been pending, have participated in debate either by consent
to make a personal explanation (II, 1656) or without question as to consent
(II, 1246, 1253, 1269, 1286). A Member against whom a resolution of cen-
sure was pending was asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard
(VI, 236). However, after the House had voted to censure and the Member
had been brought to the bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms to be censured, it
was held that he might not then be heard (II, 1259). In the modern practice,
the manager of the resolution proposing the punishment (who controls
the entire hour) yields a portion of the time to the accused (Oct. 2, 1980,
p. 28966; July 24, 2002, p. 14309; Dec. 2, 2010, p. l). In the latter case,
the House extended debate on the resolution for a specified period and
yielded that entire time to the Member who was the subject of the resolu-
tion (July 24, 2002, p. 14310). The manager of the resolution has the right
to close debate, not the Member who is the subject of the resolution (July
24, 2002, p. 14313). Where the manager of a resolution has divided the
hour three ways, the Chair announced that the order of closing speeches
would be as follows: the minority manager of the resolution, the subject
[28]
of the resolution, and the manager of the resolution (July 24, 2002, p.
14314). Debate on a resolution recommending a disciplinary sanction
against a Member may not exceed the scope of the conduct of the accused
Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
A resolution recommending reprimand, censure, or expulsion of a Mem-
ber presents a question of privilege (II, 1254; III, 2648–2651; VI, 236; Dec.
9, 1913, pp. 584–86; July 26, 1990, p. 19717; May 22, 2007, p. 13525; Oct.
23, 2007, p. 27966; July 31, 2008, p. l). If reported by the Committee
on Ethics (or a derivation thereof), the resolution may be called up at any
time after the committee has filed its report (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393; Dec.
2, 2010, p. l). Before debate, an expulsion resolution is subject to the
motion to lay on the table (Oct. 1, 1976, p. 35111), to postpone to a date
certain (Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28953; July 24, 2002, p. 14300), or to refer to
committee (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3753). A proposition to censure is not germane
to a proposition to expel (VI, 236).
The Senate once expelled several Senators by a single resolution (II,
1266); however, the House has refused to censure more than one Member
by a single resolution (II, 1240, 1621).
In the 94th Congress the House by adopting a report from the Committee
§ 64. Punishment by
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) rep-
reprimand. rimanded a Member for failing to report certain finan-
cial holdings in violation of rule XXVI (formerly rule
XLIV) and for investing in stock in a Navy bank the establishment of
which he was promoting, in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government
Service (H. Res. 1421, July 29, 1976, pp. 24379–82). (For the Code of Ethics
for Government Service, see H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong., 72 Stat. B12.)
In the 95th Congress following an investigation by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) into whether Members or em-
ployees had improperly accepted things of value from the Republic of Korea
or representatives thereof, the House reprimanded three Members, one
for falsely answering an unsworn questionnaire relative to such gifts and
violating the Code of Official Conduct, one for failing to report as required
by law the receipt of a campaign contribution and violating the Code of
Official Conduct, and one for failing to report a campaign contribution,
converting a campaign contribution to personal use, testifying falsely to
the committee under oath, and violating the Code of Official Conduct (Oct.
13, 1978, pp. 36984, 37009, 37017). In the 100th Congress the House adopt-
ed a resolution reprimanding a Member for ‘‘ghost voting,’’ improperly di-
verting government resources, and maintaining a ‘‘ghost employee’’ on his
staff (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36266). In the 101st Congress another was rep-
rimanded for seeking dismissal of parking tickets received by a person
with whom he had a personal relationship and not related to official busi-
ness and for misstatements of fact in a memorandum relating to the crimi-
nal probation record of that person (July 26, 1990, p. 19717). In the 105th
Congress the House reprimanded the Speaker and ordered him to reim-
[29]
burse a portion of the costs of the investigation by the Committee on Stand-

ards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393).
Censure is inflicted by the Speaker (II, 1259) and the words are entered
in the Journal (II, 1251, 1656; VI 236), but the Speaker
censure. may not pronounce censure except by order of the
House (VI, 237). When Members have resigned pending
proceedings for censure, the House has nevertheless adopted the resolu-
tions of censure (II, 1239, 1273, 1275, 1656). Members have been censured
for personalities and other disorder in debate (II, 1251, 1253, 1254, 1259),
assaults on the floor (II, 1665), for presenting a resolution alleged to be
insulting to the House (II, 1246), and for corrupt acts (II, 1274, 1286).
For abuse of the leave to print, the House censured a Member after a
motion to expel him had failed (VI, 236). In one instance Members were
censured for acts before the election of the then existing House (II, 1286).
In the 96th Congress two Members were censured by the House as follows:
(1) A Member who during a prior Congress both knowingly increased an
office employee’s salary for repayment of that Member’s personal expenses
and who was unjustly enriched by clerk-hire employees’ payments of per-
sonal expenses later compensated by salary increases, was censured and
ordered to repay the amount of the unjust enrichment with interest (July
31, 1979, p. 21592); (2) a Member was censured for receiving over a period
of time sums of money from a person with a direct interest in legislation
in violation of clause 3 of rule XXIII (formerly clause 4 of rule XLIII),
and for transferring campaign funds into office and personal accounts (June
10, 1980, pp. 13801–20)). In the 98th Congress the House adopted two
resolutions (as amended in the House), each censuring a Member for an
improper relationship with a House page in a prior Congress (July 20,
1983, p. 20020 and p. 20030). In the 111th Congress, after the House de-
feated an amendment to instead punish by reprimand, a Member was cen-
sured for using official resources to solicit funds for an educational center,
failing to file complete financial disclosure forms, accepting the benefits
of a rent-stabilized residence in a manner creating an appearance of impro-
priety, and failing to pay taxes on certain property, and was ordered to
pay restitution for such unpaid taxes (Dec. 2, 2010, p. l).
Five Members have been expelled in the history of the House. Among
those, three were expelled for various offenses related
expulsion. to their service for the Confederacy in the Civil War:
John B. Clark of Missouri (a Member-elect) (II, 1262,
July 13, 1861); Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky (II, 1261, Dec. 3, 1861);
and John W. Reid of Missouri (II, 1261, Dec. 6, 1861). Michael J. Myers
of Pennsylvania was expelled after being convicted in a Federal court of
bribery and conspiracy for accepting funds to perform official duties (Oct.
2, 1980, p. 28978). James A. Traficant of Ohio was expelled after being
convicted in a Federal court for crimes including (1) trading official acts
and influence for things of value; (2) demanding and accepting salary kick-
backs from his congressional employees; (3) influencing a congressional
[30]
employee to destroy evidence and to provide false testimony to a Federal

grand jury; (4) receiving personal labor and the services of his congressional
employees while they were being paid by the taxpayers to perform public
service; and (5) filing false income tax returns (July 24, 2002, p. 14319).
Three Senators were expelled for their association with the Confederates
during the Civil War (II, 1268–1270).
The power of expulsion has been the subject of much discussion (I, 469,
476, 481; II, 1264, 1265, 1269; VI, 56, 398; see Powell v. McCormack, 395
U.S. 486 (1969)). In one case a Member-elect who had not taken the oath
was expelled (II, 1262), and in another case the power to do this was dis-
cussed (I, 476). In one instance the Senate assumed to annul its action
of expulsion (II, 1243). The Supreme Court has decided that a judgment
of conviction under a disqualifying statute does not compel the Senate
to expel (II, 1282; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906)). The power
of expulsion in its relation to offenses committed before the Members’ elec-
tion has been discussed (II, 1264, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289; VI, 56,
238). In one case the Committee on the Judiciary of the House concluded
that a Member might not be punished for an offense alleged to have been
committed against a preceding Congress (II, 1283); but the House itself
declined to express doubt as to its power to expel and proceeded to inflict
censure (II, 1286). In addition, the 96th Congress punished Members on
two occasions for offenses committed during a prior Congress (H. Res. 378,
July 31, 1979, p. 21592; H. Res. 660, June 10, 1980, pp. 13801–20). It
has been held that the power of the House to expel one of its Members
is unlimited; a matter purely of discretion to be exercised by a two-thirds
vote, from which there is no appeal (VI, 78). The resignation of the accused
Member has always caused a suspension of proceedings for expulsion (II,
1275, 1276, 1279; VI, 238). Following the expulsion of a Member, the Clerk
notifies the Governor of the relevant state of the action of the House (July
24, 2002, p. 14319).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Anderson v. Dunn,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821); Kilbourn v. Thompson,
Court. 103 U.S. 168 (1881); United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S.
1 (1892); In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 (1897); Burton
v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S.
486 (1969).
3 Each
House shall keep a Journal of its Pro-
ceedings, and from time to time
§ 68. Each House to
keep a journal.
publish the same, excepting such
Parts as may in their Judgment require
Secrecy; * * *
[31]
The Journal and not the Congressional Record is the official record of
§ 69. The Journal the
the proceedings of the House (IV, 2727). Its nature and
official record. functions have been the subject of extended discussions
(IV, 2730, footnote). The House has fixed its title (IV,
2728). Although it ought to be a correct transcript of proceedings, the House
has not insisted on a strict chronological order of entries (IV, 2815). The
Journal is dated as of the legislative and not the calendar day (IV, 2746).
The Journal records proceedings but not the reasons therefor (IV, 2811)
§ 70. Journal a record
or the circumstances attending (IV, 2812), or the state-
of proceedings and ments or opinions of Members (IV, 2817–2820). Excep-
not of reasons. tions to this rule are rare (IV, 2808, 2825). Protests
have on rare occasions been admitted by the action of
the House (IV, 2806, 2807), but the entry of a protest on the Journal may
not be demanded by a Member as a matter of right (IV, 2798) and such
demand does not present a question of privilege (IV, 2799). A motion not
entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813, 2844–2846).
The House controls the Journal and may decide what are proceedings,
§ 71. House’s absolute
even to the extent of omitting things actually done or
control of entries in recording things not done (IV, 2784; VI, 634). Although
the Journal. the Speaker has entertained motions to amend the
Journal so as to cause it to state what was not the fact,
leaving it for the House to decide on the propriety of such act (IV, 2785),
and holding that he could not prevent a majority of the House from so
amending the Journal as to undo an actual transaction (IV, 3091–3093),
in none of those rulings was an amendment permitted to correct the Jour-
nal that had the effect of collaterally changing the tabling of a motion
to reconsider. In fact, under the precedents cited in § 902, infra, under
clause 1 of rule XVI it has been held not in order to amend or strike a
Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV, 2783, 2789),
and thus it was held not in order to amend the Journal by striking a
resolution actually offered (IV, 2789), but on one occasion the House va-
cated the Speaker’s referral of an executive communication by amending
the Journal of the preceding day (Mar. 19, 1990, p. 4488). Only on rare
occasions has the House nullified proceedings by rescinding the records
of them in the Journal (IV, 2787), the House and Senate usually insisting
on the accuracy of its Journal (IV, 2783, 2786). In rare instances the House
and Senate have rescinded or expunged entries in Journals of preceding
Congresses (IV, 2730, footnote, 2792, 2793).
The Journal should record the result of every vote and state in general
§ 72. Record of votes
terms the subject of it (IV, 2804); but the result of a
in the Journal. vote is recorded in figures only when the yeas and nays
are taken (IV, 2827), when the vote is recorded by elec-
tronic device or by clerks, or when a vote is taken by ballot, it having
been determined in latest practice that the Journal should show not only
the result but the state of the ballot or ballots (IV, 2832).
[32]
It is the uniform practice of the House to approve its Journal for each
§ 73. Approval of the
legislative day (IV, 2731). If Journals of more than one
Journal. session remain unapproved, they are taken up for ap-
proval in chronological order (IV, 2771–2773; Nov. 3,
1987, p. 30592).
The former rule required the reading of the Journal on each legislative
day. The reading could be dispensed with only by unanimous consent (VI,
625) or suspension of the rules (IV, 2747–2750) and had to be in full when
demanded by any Member (IV, 2739–2741; VI, 627–628; Feb. 22, 1950,
p. 2152).
The present form of the rule (clause 1 of rule I; see § 621, infra) was
drafted from section 127 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
Stat. 1140), incorporated into the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and was further amended in the 96th Con-
gress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16). Under the current practice,
the Speaker is authorized to announce approval of the Journal, which is
deemed agreed to by the House, subject to the right of any Member to
demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker’s approval (which, if decided
in the affirmative, is not subject to the motion to reconsider). In the 98th
Congress, the Speaker was given the authority to postpone a record vote
on agreeing to the approval of the Journal to a later time on that legislative
day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Although the transaction of any business
is not in order before approval of the Journal (IV, 2751; VI, 629, 637; Oct.
8, 1968, p. 30096), approval of the Journal yields to the simple motion
to adjourn (IV, 2757), administration of the oath (I, 171, 172), an arraign-
ment of impeachment (VI, 469), and questions of the privileges of the House
(II, 1630), and the Speaker has discretion to recognize for a parliamentary
inquiry before approval of the Journal (VI, 624). Under clause 1 of rule
I, as amended in the 96th Congress, a point of order of no quorum is not
in order before the Speaker announces approval of the Journal. Clause
7 of rule XX generally prohibits the making of points of order of no quorum
unless the Speaker has put the question on the pending matter.
Under the practice before clause 1 of rule I was adopted in its present
§ 74. Motions to amend
form, the motion to amend the Journal took precedence
the Journal. over the motion to approve it (IV, 2760; VI, 633); but
the motion to amend may not be admitted after the
previous question is demanded on a motion to approve (IV, 2770; VI, 633;
VIII, 2684). An expression of opinion as to a decision of the Chair was
held not in order as an amendment to the Journal (IV, 2848). A proposed
amendment to the Journal being tabled does not carry the Journal with
it (V, 5435, 5436). Although a proposed correction of the Journal may be
recorded in the Journal, it is not in order to insert in full in this indirect
way what has been denied insertion in the first instance (IV, 2782, 2804,
2805). The earlier practice was otherwise, however (IV, 2801–2803). The
Journal of the last day of a session is not approved on the assembling
of the next session, and is not ordinarily amended (IV, 2743, 2744). For
[33]
further discussion of the composition and approval of the Journal, see

Deschler, ch. 5.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Field v. Clark,
143 U.S. 649 (1892); United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S.
Court. 1 (1892).
* * * and the Yeas and Nays of the Members

§ 75. Yeas and Nays of either House on any question
entered on the
Journal. shall, at the Desire of one fifth of
those Present, be entered on the
Journal.
The yeas and nays may be ordered before the organization of the House
§ 76. Conditions of
(I, 91; V, 6012, 6013), but are not taken in Committee
ordering yeas and of the Whole (IV, 4722, 4723). They are not necessarily
nays. taken on the passage of a resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution (V, 7038, 7039; VIII,
3506), but are required to pass a bill over a veto (§ 104; VII, 1110). In
the earlier practice of the House it was held that less than a quorum might
not order the yeas and nays, but for many years the decisions have been
uniformly the other way (V, 6016–6028). Neither is a quorum necessary
on a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and nays are ordered
(V, 5693). When a quorum fails on a yea and nay vote it is the duty of
the Speaker and the House to take notice of that fact (IV, 2953, 2963,
2988). If the House adjourns, the order for the yeas and nays remains
effective whenever the bill again comes before the House (V, 6014, 6015;
VI, 740; VIII, 3108), and it has been held that the question of consideration
might not intervene on a succeeding day before the second calling of the
yeas and nays (V, 4949). However, when the call of the House is automatic,
the Speaker directs the roll to be called or the vote to be taken by electronic
device without motion from the floor (VI, 678, 679, 694, 695); and should
a quorum fail to vote and the House adjourn, proceedings under the auto-
matic call are vacated and the question recurs de novo when the bill again
comes before the House (Oct. 10, 1940, pp. 13534, 13535; Oct. 13, 1962,
p. 23474; Oct. 19, 1966, p. 27641). Although the Constitution and the Rules
of the House guarantee that votes taken by the yeas and nays be spread
upon the Journal, neither requires that a Member’s vote be announced
to the public immediately during the vote (Sept. 19, 1985, p. 24245).
The yeas and nays may not be demanded until the Speaker has put
the question in the form prescribed by clause 6 of rule I (formerly clause
5) (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33623).
The yeas and nays may be demanded while the Speaker is announcing
§ 77. Demanding the
the result of a division (V, 6039), while a vote by tellers
yeas and nays. is being taken (V, 6038), and even after the announce-
ment of the vote if the House has not passed to other
[34]
business (V, 6040, 6041; VIII, 3110) and if the Member seeking the yeas
and nays is on his feet and seeking recognition for that purpose when
the Chair announces the result of the voice vote (Nov. 22, 1991, p. 34075;
Sept. 21, 2005, p. 20856). But after the Speaker has announced the result
of a division on a motion and is in the act of putting the question on another
motion it is too late to demand the yeas and nays on the first motion
(V, 6042). And it is not in order during the various processes of a division
to repeat a demand for the yeas and nays that has once been refused by
the House (V, 6029, 6030, 6031). The constitutional right of a Member
to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled as dilatory (V, 5737;
VIII, 3107); but this constitutional right does not exist as to a vote to
second a motion when such second is required by the rules (V, 6032–6036;
VIII, 3109). The right to demand yeas and nays is not waived by the fact
that the Member demanding them has just made the point of no quorum
and caused the Chair to count the House (V, 6044).
In passing on a demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need deter-
§ 78. Yeas and nays
mine only whether one-fifth of those present sustain
ordered by one-fifth. the demand (V, 6043; VIII, 3112, 3115). In ascertaining
whether one-fifth of those present support a demand
for the yeas and nays the Speaker counts the entire number present and
not merely those who rise to be counted (VIII, 3111, 3120). Such count
is not subject to verification by appeal (Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28984; Mar.
8, 2006, p. 2954; Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22745; Mar. 18, 2010, p. l), and a request
for a rising vote of those opposed to the demand is not in order (VIII,
3112–3114), and the Speaker may refuse to entertain a parliamentary in-
quiry regarding the number of Members counted by the Chair (Aug. 3,
2007, p. 22745). If the Chair prolongs the count of the House in determining
whether one-fifth have supported the demand for yeas and nays, the Speak-
er counts latecomers in support of the demand as well as for the number
present (Sept. 24, 1990, p. 25521). After the House, on a vote by tellers,
has refused to order the yeas and nays it is too late to demand the count
of the negative on an original vote (V, 6045).
A motion to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays is in order
§ 79. Reconsideration
(V, 6029; VIII, 2790), and the vote may be reconsidered
of the vote ordering by a majority. If the House votes to reconsider the yeas
the yeas and nays. and nays may again be ordered by one-fifth (V, 5689–
5691). But when the House, having reconsidered, again
orders the yeas and nays, a second motion to reconsider may not be made
(V, 6037). In one instance it was held that the yeas and nays might be
demanded on a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and nays
were ordered (V, 5689), but evidently there must be a limit to this process.
The vote whereby the yeas and nays are refused may be reconsidered (V,
5692).
[35]
§ 80–§ 82a [ARTICLE I, SECTION 5]
A motion to adjourn may be admitted after the yeas and nays are ordered
and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); and a mo-
§ 80. Effect of an order
of the yeas and nays. tion to suspend the rules has been entertained after
the yeas and nays have been demanded on another mat-
ter (V, 6835). Consideration of a conference report (V, 6457), and a motion
to reconsider the vote by which the yeas and nays were ordered (V, 6029;
VIII, 2790) may be admitted. A demand for tellers or for a division is
not precluded or set aside by the fact that the yeas and nays are demanded
and refused (V, 5998; VIII, 3103).
Court. 1 (1892); Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196
(1897); Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901);
Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).
4 Neither House, during the Session of Con-
§ 82. Adjournment for gress shall, without the Consent of
more than three days
or to another place. the other, adjourn for more than
three days, nor to any other Place
than that in which the two Houses shall be sit-
ting.
The word ‘‘Place’’ in the above paragraph was construed to mean the
seat of Government, and consent of the Senate is not
§ 82a. Adjournment to
another place. required if the House orders its meetings to be held
in another structure at the seat of Government (Speak-
er Rayburn, Aug. 17, 1949, pp. 11651, 11683). Under clause 12(d) of rule
I, the Speaker may convene the House in a place within the District of
Columbia, other than the Hall of the House, whenever, in the opinion of
the Speaker, the public interest shall warrant it (§ 639, infra). In recent
practice the two Houses have granted joint leadership (or their designees)
authority for an entire Congress to assemble the Congress at a place outside
the District of Columbia whenever the public interest shall warrant it (H.
Con. Res. 1, Feb. 13, 2003, p. 4080; H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 68
(not adopted by the Senate); H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 42 (not adopted
by the Senate); H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l) (not adopted by the
Senate); H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The Speaker executes by
letter the designation under such resolution (e.g., Mar. 13, 2003, p. 6123).
After September 11, 2001, recall authority carried in adjournment resolu-
tions has allowed reassembly at such place as may be designated (see § 84,
infra). The President may convene Congress at places outside the seat
of Government during hazardous circumstances (2 U.S.C. 27; Deschler,
ch. 1, § 4).
On November 22, 1940 (p. 13715), the House adopted a resolution pro-
viding that thereafter until otherwise ordered its meetings be held in the
[36]
Caucus room of the new House Office Building. Likewise the Senate on
the same day (p. 13709), provided that its meetings be held in the Chamber
formerly occupied by the Supreme Court in the Capitol. The two Houses
continued to hold their sessions in these rooms until the opening of the
77th Congress. These actions were necessitated by the precarious condition
of the roofs in the two Chambers. On June 28, 1949 (p. 8571), and on
September 1, 1950 (p. 14140), the House provided that until otherwise
ordered its meetings be held in the Caucus room of the new House Office
Building, pending the remodeling of its Chamber. On June 29, 1949 (p.
8584), and on Aug. 9, 1950 (p. 12106), the Senate provided that its meetings
be held in the Chamber formerly occupied by the Supreme Court in the
Capitol, pending remodeling of its Chamber. The House returned to its
Chamber on January 3, 1950, and again on January 1, 1951. The Senate
returned to its Chamber on January 3, 1950, and again on January 3,
1951.
There has been no occasion for the convening of a session of Congress
outside the seat of Government. However, the Congress has engaged in
ceremonial functions outside the seat of Government, which were author-
ized by concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 131, May 28, 1987, p. 14031;
H. Con. Res. 96, Apr. 18, 1989, p. 6834; H. Con. Res. 448, July 25, 2002,
p. 14645).
The House of Representatives in adjourning for not more than three
§ 83. Adjournment of
days must take into the count either the day of adjourn-
the House within the ing or the day of the meeting, but not Sundays (V, 6673,
three-day limit. 6674). The House may provide for a session of the
House on a Sunday, traditionally a ‘‘dies non’’ under
the precedents of the House (e.g., Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31946; Nov. 17, 1989,
p. 30029; Aug. 20, 1994, p. 23367). The House has by standing order pro-
vided that it should meet on two days only of each week instead of daily
(V, 6675). Before the election of Speaker, the House has adjourned for
more than one day (I, 89, 221). The House has by unanimous consent
agreed to an adjournment for less than three days but specified that it
would continue in adjournment for 10 days pursuant to a concurrent resolu-
tion already adopted by the House if the Senate adopted the concurrent
resolution before the third day of the House’s adjournment (Nov. 20, 1987,
p. 33054). The Committee on Rules has reported a rule authorizing the
Speaker to declare the House in recesses subject to calls of the Chair during
five discrete periods, each consistent with the constitutional constraint that
neither House adjourn (or recess) for more than three days without consent
of the other House (Dec. 21, 1995, p. 38141; Jan. 5, 1996, p. 357). Clause
12(c) of rule I provides certain authorities for reconvening or postponing
the time for reconvening during any recess or adjournment of not more
than three days (see § 639, infra).
[37]
Congress enables an adjournment for more than three days by a concur-

§ 84. Resolutions for
rent resolution (IV, 4031, footnote). When it adjourns
adjournment of the in this way, but not to or beyond the day fixed by Con-
two Houses. stitution or law for the next regular session to begin,
the session is not thereby necessarily terminated (V,
6676, 6677). At the close of the first session of the 66th Congress, the
two Houses adjourned sine die under authority granted each House by
simple resolutions consenting to such adjournment sine die at any time
before a specified date (Nov. 19, 1919, p. 8810).
Until the 67th Congress neither House had ever adjourned for more
than three days by itself with the consent of the other, but resolutions
had been offered for the accomplishment of that end (V, 6702, 6703). In
the modern practice it is common for a concurrent resolution to provide
for a one-House adjournment or to provide for each House to adjourn for
different time periods. For example: (1) the House adjourned until August
15, 1922, with the consent of the Senate (June 29, 1922, p. 10439); (2)
the two Houses provided for an adjournment sine die of the House on
August 20, 1954, and of the Senate at any time before December 25, 1954
(H. Con. Res. 266; Aug. 20, 1954, p. 15554); (3) the two Houses provided
for an adjournment sine die of the House on December 20 or December
21 pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or a designee, and
of the Senate at any time before January 3, 1983, as determined by the
Senate, and for adjournments or recesses of the Senate for periods of more
than three days as determined by the Senate during such period (H. Con.
Res. 438, Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32951); (4) the two Houses provided for an
adjournment of the Senate to a day certain and of the House for more
than three days to a day certain, or to any day before that day as deter-
mined by the House (S. Con. Res. 102, May 27, 1982, pp. 12504, 12505);
(5) the two Houses provided for an adjournment to a day certain, with
a provision that if there should be no quorum present on that day the
session should terminate (V, 6686).
A concurrent resolution adjourning both Houses for more than three
days, or sine die, normally includes joint leadership authority to reassemble
the Members whenever the public interest shall warrant it (see, e.g., July
8, 1943, p. 7516; July 26, 1947, p. 10521; Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41815; Nov.
21, 1989, p. 31156; Oct. 3, 1996, p. 12275; Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27019). Pursuant
to such recall authority: (1) the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the
Senate notified Members of the House to reassemble, the Senate already
being in session (Mar. 20, 2005, p. 5446, pursuant to H. Con. Res. 103,
Mar. 17, 2005, p. 5143; Nov. 19, 2008, p. l and Dec. 9, 2008, l, pursuant
to H. Con. Res. 440, Oct. 2, 2008, p. l); (2) the Speaker and the Majority
Leader of the Senate notified Members of both Houses to reassemble (Sept.
2, 2005, p. 19424, pursuant to H. Con. Res. 225, July 28, 2005, p. 18356).
After September 11, 2001, such recall authority has allowed reassembly
at such place as may be designated (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 160, Nov. 22,
2002, p. 23512; H. Con. Res. 531, Dec. 7, 2004, p. 25708). More recently,
[38]
such recall authority permitted recall by designees of the Speaker and

the Majority Leader of the Senate (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 132, July 26,
2002, p. 15138). The Speaker executes by letter the designation under a
concurrent resolution of adjournment (e.g., Mar. 13, 2003, p. 6123). The
Speaker also executes by letter the designation of another Member to uti-
lize reassembly authority under a joint resolution changing the convening
date of the next session (H. J. Res. 80, Dec. 15, 2003, p. 32411).
On occasion an adjournment resolution has provided for one-House recall
(see, e.g., July 20, 1970, p. 24978). Joint leadership and House-only recall
provisions were included in the sine die adjournment resolution for the
second session of the 105th Congress (H. Con. Res. 353, Oct. 20, 1998,
p. 27348), and the Speaker exercised recall authority under that resolution
to reassemble the House (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27802). One-House recall au-
thority, with provision to again adjourn for more than three days, was
included in two complementary one-House adjournment resolutions of the
111th Congress (H. Con. Res. 307, H. Con. Res. 308, July 29, 2010, p.
l) and the Speaker (Aug. 9, 2010, p. l) and Majority Leader of the Senate
(Aug. 12, 2010, p. l) each exercised recall authority under the respective
adjournment resolution.
When the Senate is out of session for not more than three days, the
Senate Majority and Minority Leaders may modify an order for the time
or place of convening when, in their opinion, such action is warranted
by intervening circumstances (S. Res. 296, 108th Cong., Feb. 3, 2004, p.
731). Pursuant to such authority, during an adjournment of the Senate
for not more than three days, the Senate convened earlier than previously
ordered to adopt a House concurrent resolution providing for an adjourn-
ment of the two Houses (H. Con. Res. 103, Mar. 17, 2005, p. 5143), section
2 of which enabled a recall of the House (Mar. 20, 2005, p. 5446).
A resolution adopted in the first session of the 106th Congress provided
for an adjournment to a date certain, unless the House sooner received
a specified message from the Senate, in which case it would stand ad-
journed sine die (H. Con. Res. 235, Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30734). A simple
resolution adopted in the first session of the 111th Congress provided for
a series of adjournments of not more than three days, unless the House
sooner received: (1) a specified message from the Senate, (2) confirmation
that the President had approved a certain bill, and (3) a message that
the Senate had concurred in an adjournment resolution, in which case
it would stand adjourned pursuant to such adjournment resolution (H.
Res. 976, Dec. 16, 2009, p. l). It has become the common practice for
the House, by unanimous consent adopted after originating an adjourn-
ment resolution, to fix a time to which it would adjourn within three days
unless the House were sooner to receive a message from the Senate trans-
mitting its adoption of the adjournment resolution, in which case the House
would stand adjourned pursuant to that resolution (see, e.g., Nov. 3, 2000,
p. 25993; Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3726).
[39]
A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die of the first

session may contain a proviso that when the second session convenes the
Senate or House may not conduct organizational or legislative business
but shall adjourn on that day until a date certain, unless sooner recalled
(H. Con. Res. 232, Dec. 20, 1979, p. 37317; H. Con. Res. 260, Nov. 26,
1991, p. 35840; H. Con. Res. 235, Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30734). The prohibition
on the conduct of such business may be applied to the House by simple
resolution and may vest the Speaker with the authority to dispense with
such business over a period of time (H. Res. 619, as amended by H. Res.
640, Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29054, Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30378). Such a prohibition
does not preclude recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
speeches by unanimous consent (Jan. 3, 1992, pp. 2, 9) or the introduction
and numbering of bills and resolutions (which would not be noted in the
Congressional Record or referred by the Speaker until the next legislative
day, when executive communications, petitions, and memorials also would
be numbered and referred) (Jan. 24, 2000, p. 48). The House has passed
a joint resolution appointing a day for the convening of a second session
of a Congress and provided for possible earlier assembly by joint-leadership
recall (see, e.g., H. J. Res. 80, Dec. 20, 2001, p. 27597; H. J. Res. 80, Nov.
21, 2003, pp. 30856, 30857).
A concurrent resolution to provide for adjournment for more than three
days or an adjournment sine die is offered in the House as a matter of
privilege (V, 6701–6706), and is not debatable (VIII, 3372–3374), though
a Member may be recognized under a reservation of objection to a unani-
mous-consent request that the resolution be agreed to (Oct. 27, 1990, p.
36850). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provides for an adjourn-
ment sine die, or (in an odd numbered year) an adjournment of slightly
over a month (from that Friday in August which is at least 30 days before
Labor Day to the Wednesday following Labor Day) unless the nation is
in a state of war, declared by Congress (sec. 461(b); 84 Stat. 1140). Congress
may, of course, waive this requirement and make other determinations
regarding its adjournment (see § 1106, infra).
The requirement that resolutions providing for an adjournment sine die
of either House may not be considered until Congress has completed action
on the second concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year in
question, and on any reconciliation legislation required by such a resolu-
tion, contained in section 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(P.L. 93–344), was repealed by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177). That law amended sections 309 and
310 of the Congressional Budget Act to prohibit the consideration of concur-
rent resolutions providing adjournments for more than three calendar days
during the month of July until the House has approved annual appropria-
tion bills within the jurisdictions of all the subcommittees on Appropria-
tions for the ensuing fiscal year, and until the House has completed action
on all reconciliation legislation for the ensuing fiscal year required to be
[40]
reported by the concurrent resolution on the budget for that year (see
§ 1127, infra).
SECTION 6. 1 The Senators and Representa-

§ 85. Compensation of tives shall receive a Compensation
Members.
for their Services, to be ascertained
by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
United States.
The 27th amendment to the Constitution addresses laws varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives (see
§ 258, infra). The present rate of compensation of Representatives, the Resi-
dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Delegates, the Speaker, the Majority
and Minority Leaders of the House, and the Vice President is established
by law (2 U.S.C. 31; 3 U.S.C. 104) with an additional amount per annum
to assist in defraying expenses (2 U.S.C. 31b; 3 U.S.C. 111). These rates
of compensation are all (except for the expense allowances) subject to an-
nual cost of living adjustments (2 U.S.C. 31(2)). The present rate of com-
pensation of Senators is that fixed by section 1101 of Public Law 101–
194, as adjusted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 31(2).
Under the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351–362), the Citizens’
Commission on Public Service and Compensation (for-
§ 86. Salary and
deductions. merly the Commission on Executive, Legislative and
Judicial Salaries) is authorized and directed to conduct
quadrennial reviews of the rates of pay of specified government officials,
including Members of Congress, and to report to the President the results
of each review and its recommendations for adjustments in such rates.
The enactment of those recommendations is governed by the Federal Sal-
ary Act (see § 1130(12), infra).
The statute also provides for deductions from the pay of Members and
Delegates who are absent from the sessions of the House for reasons other
than illness of themselves and families, or who retire before the end of
the Congress (2 U.S.C. 39; IV, 3011, footnote). The law as to deductions
has been held to apply only to Members who have taken the oath (II,
1154). Members and Delegates are paid monthly on certificate of the Speak-
er (2 U.S.C. 34, 35, 37, 57a). The residence of a Member of Congress for
purpose of imposing State income tax laws shall be the State from which
elected and not the State, or subdivision thereof, in which the Member
maintains an abode for the purpose of attending sessions of Congress (4
U.S.C. 113). The pension of a Member may be forfeited upon conviction
involving abuse of the public trust (5 U.S.C. 8312, 8411).
Questions have arisen frequently as to compensation of Members espe-
cially in cases of Members elected to fill vacancies (I,
compensation. 500; II, 1155) and in which there have been questions
as to incompatible offices (I, 500) or claims to a seat
(II, 1206). The Supreme Court has held that a Member chosen to fill a
[41]
vacancy is entitled to salary only from the time that the compensation
of the predecessor has ceased. Page v. United States, 127 U.S. 67 (1888);
see also 2 U.S.C. 37.
In the 92d Congress, the provisions of H. Res. 457 of that Congress,
§ 88. Travel and
authorizing the Committee on House Administration
Members’ to adjust allowances of Members and committees with-
representational out further action by the House, were enacted into per-
allowances. manent law (2 U.S.C. 57), but the 94th Congress en-
acted into permanent law H. Res. 1372 of that Con-
gress, stripping the committee of that authority and requiring House ap-
proval of the committee’s recommendations, except in cases made nec-
essary by price changes in materials and supplies, technological advances
in office equipment, and cost of living increases (2 U.S.C. 57a). The Com-
mittee on House Administration retains authority under 2 U.S.C. 57 to
independently adjust amounts under certain conditions outlined in 2
U.S.C. 57a (Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227; Apr. 21, 1983, p. 9339). The text of
those statutes follow:
‘‘SEC. 57. ADJUSTMENT OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALLOWANCES BY

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provision of law specified in subsection

(b) of this section, the Committee on House Administration of the House
of Representatives may, by order of the Committee, fix and adjust the
amounts, terms, and conditions of, and other matters relating to, allow-
ances of the House of Representatives within the following categories:
‘‘(1) For Members of the House of Representatives, the Members’
Representational Allowance, including all aspects of the Official Mail
Allowance within the jurisdiction of the Committee under section
59(e) of this title.
‘‘(2) For committees, the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Lead-
ers, the Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative
Officer, allowances for official mail (including all aspects of the Offi-
cial Mail Allowance within the jurisdiction of the Committee under
section 59e of this title), stationery, and telephone and telegraph and
other communications.
‘‘(b) PROVISION SPECIFIED.—The provision of law referred to in subsection
(a) of this section is section 57a of this title.
‘‘(c) MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEFINED.—As used
in this section, the term ‘Member of the House of Representatives’ means
a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Con-
gress.’’
[42]
‘‘SEC. 57a. LIMITATION ON ALLOWANCE AUTHORITY OF COMMITTEE ON

HOUSE ADMINISTRATION.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An order under the provision of law specified in sub-

section (c) of this section may fix or adjust the allowances of the House
of Representatives only by reason of—
‘‘(1) a change in the price of materials, services, or office space;
‘‘(2) a technological change or other improvement in office equip-
ment; or
‘‘(3) an increase under section 5303 of title 5 in rates of pay under
the General Schedule.
‘‘(b) RESOLUTION REQUIREMENT.—In the case of reasons other than the
reasons specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this section,
the fixing and adjustment of the allowances of the House of Representatives
in the categories described in the provision of law specified in subsection
(c) of this section may be carried out only by resolution of the House of
Representatives.
‘‘(c) PROVISION SPECIFIED.—The provision of law referred to in sub-
sections (a) and (b) of this section is section 57 of this title.’’
In the 104th Congress the Committee on House Administration promul-
gated an order abolishing separate allowances for Clerk Hire, Official Ex-
penses, and Official Mail, in favor of a single ‘‘Members’ Representational
Allowance’’ (MRA), which was ultimately enacted into law (2 U.S.C. 57b).
The MRA is provided for the employment of staff in the Member’s Wash-
ington and district offices, official expenses incurred by the Member, and
the postage expenses of first, third, and fourth class frankable mail.
Until January 1, 1988, the maximum salary for staff members was the
rate of basic pay authorized for Level V of the Executive Schedule (by
order of the Committee on House Administration, Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227).
Under section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988, as
contained in section 101(i) of Public Law 100–202 (2 U.S.C. 60a–2a), the
maximum salary for staff members is set by pay order of the Speaker.
A Member may not employ a relative on an MRA (5 U.S.C. 3110). The
Code of Official Conduct also precludes certain hiring practices of Members
(see § 1095, infra).
Until the 103d Congress, a Member could employ a ‘‘Lyndon Baines
Johnson Congressional Intern’’ for a maximum of two months at not to
exceed $1,160 per month. Such internships were available for college stu-
dents and secondary or postsecondary school teachers (H. Res. 420, 93d
Cong., Sept. 18, 1973, p. 30186). Any paid internship is now funded through
the MRA.
The statutes provide for continuation of the pay of clerical assistants
to a Member upon death or resignation, until a successor is elected to
fill the vacancy, and such clerical assistants perform their duties under
the direction of the Clerk of the House (2 U.S.C. 92a–92d). Upon the expul-
sion of a Member in the 96th Congress, the House by resolution extended
[43]
those provisions to any termination of service by a Member during the

term of office (H. Res. 804, Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28978).
For current information on the MRA and the method of its accounting
and disbursement, see current U.S. House of Representatives Congres-
sional Handbook, Committee on House Administration.
At its organization the 104th Congress prohibited the establishment or
continuation of any legislative service organization (as
§ 88a. Ban on
Legislative Service that term had been understood in the 103d Congress)
Organizations. and directed the Committee on House Administration
to take such steps as were necessary to ensure an or-
derly termination and accounting for funds of any legislative service organi-
zation in existence on January 3, 1995 (sec. 222, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 477).
Separate from the MRA specified above, the leaders of the House (the
Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority
§ 89. Leadership staff
allowances. Whip, and Minority Whip) are entitled to office staffing
allowances consisting of certain statutory positions as
well as lump-sum appropriations authorized by section 473 of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). The portion of these allow-
ances for leadership office personnel may be adjusted by the Clerk of the
House in certain situations when the President effects a pay adjustment
for certain classes of Federal employees under the Federal Pay Com-
parability Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–656; 84 Stat. 1946).
Under section 311(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988
§ 89a. Speaker’s ‘‘pay
[2 U.S.C. 60a–2a], the Speaker may issue ‘‘pay orders’’
orders.’’ that adjust pay levels for officers and employees of the
House to maintain certain relationships with com-
parable levels in the Senate and in the other branches of government.
For the text of section 311(d), see § 1130(12), infra.
* * * They [the Senators and Representa-

tives] shall in all Cases, except
§ 90. Privilege of
Members from arrest.
Treason, Felony, and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their at-
tendance at the Session of their respective
Houses, and in going to and returning from the
same; * * *
The word ‘‘felony’’ in this provision has been interpreted not to refer
to a delinquency in a matter of debt (III, 2676), and
§ 91. Assertions of
‘‘treason, felony, and breach of the peace’’ have been
privilege of Members
by the House. construed to mean all indictable crimes (III, 2673). The
Supreme Court has held that the privilege does not
apply to arrest in any criminal case. Williamson v. United States, 207
U.S. 425 (1908). The courts have discussed and sustained the privilege
[44]
of the Member in going to and returning from the session (III, 2674); and
where a person assaulted a Member on his way to the House, although
at a place distant therefrom, the House arrested him on warrant of the
Speaker, arraigned him at the bar and had him imprisoned (II, 1626, 1628).
Other assaults under these circumstances have been treated as breaches
of privilege (II, 1645). Where a Member had been arrested and detained
under mesne process in a civil suit during a recess of Congress, the House
decided that he was entitled to discharge on the assembling of Congress,
and liberated him and restored him to his seat by the hands of its own
officer (III, 2676). Service of process is distinguished from arrest in civil
cases and related historical data are collected in Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S.
76 (1934), in which the Supreme Court held that the clause was applicable
only to arrests in civil suits, now largely obsolete but common at the time
of the adoption of the United States Constitution. Rule VIII (formerly rule
L) was added in the 97th Congress to provide a standing procedure gov-
erning subpoenas to Members, officers, and employees directing their ap-
pearance as witnesses relating to the official functions of the House, or
for the production of House documents.
§ 92. Members * * * and for any Speech or De-

privileged from being
questioned for speech
bate in either House, they [the Sen-
or debate. ators and Representatives] shall not
be questioned in any other place.
This privilege as to ‘‘any speech or debate’’ applies generally to ‘‘things
§ 93. Scope of the
done in a session of the House by one of its Members
privilege. in relation to the business before it.’’ Kilbourn v.
Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), cited at III, 2675. See
also II, 1655 and §§ 301, 302, infra, for provisions in Jefferson’s Manual
on the privilege; and Deschler, ch. 7. Moreover, it applies to all acts within
the ‘‘legislative sphere,’’ which includes matters that are ‘‘an integral part
of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members partici-
pate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration
or passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other mat-
ters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.’’
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 624, 625 (1972). The clause precludes
judicial inquiry into the motivation, preparation, or content of a Member’s
speech on the floor and prevents such a speech from being made the basis
for a criminal conspiracy charge against the Member. United States v.
Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). The Supreme Court held in United States
v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 447 (1979), that under the Speech or Debate Clause,
neither evidence of nor references to legislative acts of a Member of Con-
gress may be introduced by the Government in a prosecution under the
official bribery statute. But the Supreme Court has limited the scope of
legislative activity that is protected under the clause by upholding grand
jury inquiry into the possession and nonlegislative use of classified docu-
[45]
ments by a Member. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972). The
Court has also sustained the validity of an indictment of a Member for
accepting an illegal bribe to perform legislative acts in which the prosecu-
tion established a prima facie case without relying on the Member’s con-
stitutionally-protected legislative speech. United States v. Brewster, 408
U.S. 501 (1972). Nor does the clause protect transmittal of allegedly defam-
atory material issued in press releases and newsletters by a Senator, be-
cause neither was essential to the deliberative process of the Senate.
Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). For a discussion of waivers
of the Speech or Debate clause, see § 301, infra.
Legislative employees acting under orders of the House are not nec-
essarily protected under the clause from judicial inquiry into the constitu-
tionality of their actions. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 165 (1880);
Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); Powell v. McCormack, 395
U.S. 486 (1969). But see Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972),
in which the Supreme Court held that the aide of a Senator was protected
under the clause when performing legislative acts that would have been
protected under the clause if performed by the Senator himself. There is
no distinction between the members of a Senate subcommittee and its chief
counsel insofar as complete immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause
is provided for the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to legitimate legislative
inquiry. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). See
also Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) (relating to the dissemination
of a congressional report) for the immunity under this clause of Members
of the House and their staffs, and for the common-law immunity of the
Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents.
For Federal court decisions on the applicability of the clause to unofficial
circulation of reprints from the Congressional Record, see McGovern v.
Martz, 182 F. Supp. 343 (1960); Long v. Ansell, 69 F.2d 386 (1934), aff’d,
293 U.S. 76 (1934); Methodist Federation for Social Action v. Eastland,
141 F. Supp. 729 (1956). For inquiry into a Member’s use of the franking
privilege, see Hoellen v. Annunzio, 468 F.2d 522 (1972), cert. denied, 412
U.S. 953 (1973); Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 350 F. Supp. 1076 (1972), rev’d 492
F.2d 413 (1974). For inquiry into the printing of committee reports, see
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973); Hentoff v. Ichord, 318 F. Supp.
1175 (1970).
For assaulting a Member for words spoken in debate, Samuel Houston,
§ 94. Action by the
not a Member, was arrested, tried, and censured by
House. the House (II, 1616–1619). Where Members have as-
saulted other Members for words spoken in debate (II,
1656), or proceeded by duel (II, 1644), or demanded explanation in a hostile
manner (II, 1644), the House has considered the cases as of privilege. A
communication addressed to the House by an official in an Executive De-
partment calling in question words uttered by a Member in debate was
criticized as a breach of privilege and withdrawn (III, 2684). An explanation
having been demanded of a Member by a person not a Member for a ques-
[46]
tion asked of the latter when a witness before the House, the matter was
considered but not pressed as a breach of privilege (III, 2681). A letter
from a person supposed to have been assailed by a Member in debate,
asking properly and without menace if the speech was correctly reported,
was held to involve no question of privilege (III, 2682). Unless it is clear
that a Member has been questioned for words spoken in debate, the House
declines to act (II, 1620; III, 2680).
For assaulting a Member, Charles C. Glover was arrested, arraigned
at the bar of the House, and censured by the Speaker by direction of the
House, although the provocation of the assault was words spoken in debate
in the previous Congress (VI, 333).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thomp-
son, 103 U.S. 168 (1880); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341
Court. U.S. 367 (1951); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S.
169 (1966); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82
(1967); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969); Gravel v. United States,
408 U.S. 606 (1972); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); Doe
v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973); Eastland v. United States Serviceman’s
Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979);
Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442
U.S. 500 (1979).
2 No
Senator or Representative shall, during
the Time for which he was elected,
§ 96. Restriction on
appointment of
be appointed to any Civil Office
Members to office.
under the Authority of the United

States, which shall have been created, or the
Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased
during such time; * * *.
In a few cases questions have arisen under this paragraph (I, 506, foot-
note; and see 42 Op. Att’y Gen. 36 (1969); see also Deschler, ch. 7; P.L.
110–455 (emoluments of Secretary of State); P.L. 111–1 (emoluments of
Secretary of the Interior).
§ 97. Members not to * * * and no Person holding

hold office under the
United States.
any Office under the United States,
shall be a Member of either House
during his Continuance in Office.
The meaning of the word ‘‘office’’ as used in this paragraph has been
discussed (I, 185, 417, 478, 493; II, 993; VI, 60, 64), as has also the general
subject of incompatible offices (I, 563).
[47]
The Committee on the Judiciary has concluded that members of commis-

§ 98. As to what are
sions created by law to investigate and report, but hav-
incompatible offices. ing no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and
visitors to academies, regents, directors, and trustees
of public institutions, appointed under the law by the Speaker, are not
officers within the meaning of the Constitution (I, 493). Membership on
joint committees created by statute is not an office in the contemplation
of the constitutional provision prohibiting Members of Congress from hold-
ing simultaneously other offices under the United States (VII, 2164). A
Member of either House is eligible to appointment to any office not forbid-
den him by law, the duties of which are not incompatible with those of
a Member (VI, 63) and the question as to whether a Member may be ap-
pointed to the Board of Managers of the Soldiers’ Home and become local
manager of one of the homes, is a matter for the decision of Congress
itself (VI, 63). The House has also distinguished between the performance
of paid services for the Executive (I, 495), like temporary service as assist-
ant United States attorney (II, 993), and the acceptance of an incompatible
office. The House has declined to hold that a contractor under the Govern-
ment is constitutionally disqualified to serve as a Member (I, 496). But
the House, or its committees, have found disqualified a Member who was
appointed a militia officer in the District of Columbia (I, 486) and in various
States (VI, 60), and Members who have accepted commissions in the Army
(I, 491, 492, 494). But the Committee on the Judiciary has expressed the
opinion that persons on the retired list of the Army do not hold office
under the United States in the constitutional sense (I, 494). A Member-
elect has continued to act as governor of a State after the assembling of
the Congress to which he was elected (I, 503), but the duties of a Member
of the House and the Governor of a State are absolutely inconsistent and
may not be simultaneously discharged by the same Member (VI, 65).
The House decided that the status of a Member-elect was not affected
§ 99. Appointment of
by the constitutional requirement (I, 499), the theory
Members-elect to being advanced that the status of the Member-elect is
offices under the distinguished from the status of the Member who has
United States. qualified (I, 184). A Member-elect, who continued in
an office after his election but resigned before taking
his seat, was held entitled to the seat (I, 497, 498). However, when a Mem-
ber-elect held an incompatible office after the meeting of Congress and
his taking of the oath, he was held to have disqualified himself (I, 492).
In other words, the Member-elect may defer until the meeting of Congress
and his taking of the oath, his choice between the seat and an incompatible
office (I, 492). As early as 1874 the Attorney General opined that a Member-
elect is not officially a Member of the House, and thus may hold any office
until sworn (14 Op. Att’y Gen. 408 (1874)).
[48]
The House has manifestly subscribed to the idea that a contestant hold-
ing an incompatible office need not make an election
§ 100. Relation of
contestants to until the House has declared the contestant entitled
incompatible offices. to the seat (I, 505). Although a contestant had accepted
and held a State office in violation of the State constitu-
tion, if he were really elected a Member, the House did not treat his contest
as abated (II, 1003). Where a Member had been appointed to an incompat-
ible office a contestant not found to be elected was not admitted to fill
the vacancy (I, 807).
Where a Member has accepted an incompatible office, the House has
assumed or declared the seat vacant (I, 501, 502; VI,
§ 101. Procedure of the
House when 65). In the cases of Baker and Yell, the Elections Com-
incompatible offices mittee concluded that the acceptance of a commission
are accepted. as an officer of volunteers in the national army vacated
the seat of a Member (I, 488), and in another similar
case the Member was held to have forfeited his right to a seat (I, 490).
The House has seated a person bearing regular credentials on ascertaining
that his predecessor in the same Congress had accepted a military office
(I, 572). But usually the House by resolution formally declares the seat
vacant (I, 488, 492). A Member-elect may defer until the meeting of Con-
gress and the taking of the oath of office the choice between the seat and
an incompatible office (I, 492). But when he retains the incompatible office
and does not qualify, a vacancy has been held to exist (I, 500). A resolution
excluding a Member who has accepted an incompatible office may be agreed
to by a majority vote (I, 490). A Member charged with acceptance of an
incompatible office was heard in his own behalf during the debate (I, 486).
Where it was held in Federal court that a Member of Congress may
not hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve under this clause,
the U.S. Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, the plaintiff’s lack
of standing to maintain the suit. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
v. Laird, 323 F. Supp. 833 (1971), aff’d, 595 F.2d 1075 (1972), rev’d on
other grounds, 418 U.S. 208 (1974).
SECTION 7. 1 All Bills for raising Revenue shall

§ 102. Bills raising originate in the House of Rep-
revenue to originate
in the House. resentatives; but the Senate may
propose or concur with Amend-
ments as on other Bills.
This provision has been the subject of much discussion (II, 1488, 1494).
In the earlier days the practice was not always correct (II, 1484); but in
later years the House has insisted on its prerogative and the Senate has
often shown reluctance to infringe thereon (II, 1482, 1483, 1493). In several
instances, however, the subject has been a matter of contention, conference
(II, 1487, 1488), and final disagreement (II, 1485, 1487, 1488). Sometimes,
however, when the House has questioned an invasion of prerogative, the
[49]
Senate has receded (II, 1486, 1493). The disagreements have been espe-
cially vigorous over the right of the Senate to concur with amendments
(II, 1489), and although the Senate has acquiesced in the sole right of
the House to originate revenue bills, it has at the same time held to a
broad power of amendment (II, 1497–1499). The House has frequently chal-
lenged the Senate on this point (II, 1481, 1491, 1496; Sept. 14, 1965, p.
23632). When the House has perceived an invasion of its prerogative, it
has ordered the bill or Senate amendment to be returned to the Senate
(II, 1480–1499; VI, 315, 317; Mar. 30, 1937, p. 2930; July 2, 1960, p. 15818;
Oct. 10, 1962, p. 23014; May 20, 1965, p. 11149; June 20, 1968, p. 22127;
Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31518; May 17, 1983, p. 12486; Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25418;
Sept. 25, 1986, p. 26202; July 30, 1987, p. 21582; June 16, 1988, p. 14780;
June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Sept. 23, 1988, p. 25094; Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26415;
Oct. 21, 1988, pp. 33110–11; June 15, 1989, p. 12167; Nov. 9, 1989, p.
28271; Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087; Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29284; Feb. 25, 1992,
p. 3377; July 14, 1994, p. 16593; July 21, 1994, p. 17280; July 21, 1994,
p. 17281; Aug. 12, 1994, pp. 7642, 7643; Oct. 7, 1994, p. 29136, 29137;
Mar. 21, 1996, p. 5950; Apr. 16, 1996, pp. 7642, 7643; Sept. 27, 1996, p.
25542; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25931; Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2618; Oct. 15, 1998, p.
26483; July 15, 1999, p. 16317; Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30732; Oct. 24, 2000,
p. 24149; Sept. 20, 2001, p. 17454; Sept. 23, 2010, p. l), or declined to
proceed further with it (II, 1485). Among the measures the House has
returned to the Senate: a Senate-passed bill providing for the sale of Con-
rail and containing provisions relating to the tax treatment of the sale,
notwithstanding inclusion in that bill of a disclaimer section requiring all
revenue provisions therein to be contained in separate legislation origi-
nating in the House (Sept. 25, 1986, p. 26202); a Senate-passed bill prohib-
iting the importation of commodities subject to tariff (July 30, 1987, p.
21582); a Senate-passed bill banning all imports from Iran, a tariff measure
as affecting revenue from dutiable imports (June 16, 1988, p. 14780); a
Senate-passed bill dealing with the tax treatment of income derived from
the exercise of Indian treaty fishing rights (June 21, 1988, p. 15425); a
Senate-passed bill creating a tax-exempt government corporation (June
15, 1989, p. 12167); a Senate-passed bill addressing the tax treatment of
police-corps scholarships and the regulation of firearms under the Internal
Revenue Code (Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087); a Senate-passed bill including
certain import sanctions in an export administration statute (Oct. 31, 1991,
p. 29284); a Senate-passed bill requiring the President to impose sanctions
including import restrictions against countries that fail to eliminate large-
scale driftnet fishing (Feb. 25, 1992, p. 3377); a Senate amendment to
a general appropriation bill prohibiting funds for the Internal Revenue
Service to enforce a requirement to use undyed diesel fuel for use in rec-
reational boats (July 14, 1994, p. 16593); a Senate amendment to a general
appropriation bill proposing a user fee raising revenue to finance broader
activities of the agency imposing the levy, thereby raising general revenue
(Aug. 12, 1994, p. 21656); a Senate amendment to a general appropriation
[50]
bill proposing to increase two fees to finance general government operations

(Sept. 23, 2010, p. l); a Senate-passed bill proposing to regulate toxic
substances by prohibiting the import of products containing more than
specified level of lead (July 21, 1994, p. 17280); a Senate-passed bill pro-
posing to repeal a fee on electricity generated by nuclear energy that other-
wise would raise revenue (Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2618); a Senate-passed bill
proposing new import restrictions on products containing any substance
derived from rhinoceroses or tigers (Oct. 15, 1998, p. 26483); Senate-passed
bills proposing an amendment to the criminal code that would make it
unlawful to import certain assault weapons (Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087) or
to import large capacity ammunition feeding devices (July 15, 1999, p.
16317); Senate-passed bills prescribing the tax treatment of certain bene-
fits to members of the Armed Forces (Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30732) or of public-
sector retirement plans (Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30734); a Senate-passed bill pro-
posing to create a new basis for applying import restrictions on bear viscera
or products derived therefrom (Oct. 24, 2000, p. 24149); a Senate amend-
ment proposing to enact by reference a Senate bill providing for a ban
on (dutiable) imports of diamonds from certain countries (Sept. 20, 2001,
p. 17454). The House laid on the table a resolution asserting that a con-
ference report (on which the House was acting first) accompanying a House
bill originated provisions in derogation of the constitutional prerogative
of the House and resolving that such bill be recommitted to conference
(July 27, 2000, p. 16565). The House, by adopting one resolution, has re-
turned multiple measures to the Senate (Sept. 23, 2010, p. l).
A bill raising revenue incidentally was held not to infringe upon the
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation (VI,
315). A question relating to the invasion of the constitutional prerogatives
of the House by a Senate amendment may be raised at any time when
the House is in possession of the papers, but not otherwise; thus, the ques-
tion has been presented pending the motion to call up a conference report
on the bill (June 20, 1968, Deschler, ch. 13, § 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127),
but has been held nonprivileged with respect to a bill already presented
to the President (Apr. 6, 1995, p. 10700). The Senate decided that a bill
proposing a gasoline tax in the District of Columbia should not originate
in the Senate (VI, 316).
Clause 5(a) of rule XXI prohibits consideration of any amendment, in-
cluding any Senate amendment, proposing a tax or tariff during consider-
ation of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
jurisdiction (§ 1066, infra).
For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House under this clause, and
discussion of the prerogatives of the House to originate appropriation bills,
see Deschler, ch. 13. For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House
with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see § 597, infra. For examples
of Senate messages requesting the return of Senate revenue measures,
see § 565, infra.
[51]

143 U.S. 649 (1892); Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167
Court. U.S. 196 (1897); Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
(1911); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906); Rainey
v. United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914); United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495
U.S. 385 (1990).
2 Every Bill which shall have passed the
§ 104. Approval and House of Representatives and the
disapproval of bills by
the President. Senate, shall, before it become a
Law, be presented to the President
of the United States; If he approve he shall sign
it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objec-
tions to that House in which it shall have origi-
nated, who shall enter the Objections at large on
their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If
after such Reconsideration two thirds of that
House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be
sent, together with the Objections, to the other
House, by which it shall likewise be reconsid-
ered, and if approved by two thirds of that
House, it shall become a Law. But in all such
Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be deter-
mined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the
Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be
entered on the Journal of each House respec-
tively. * * *.
Under the usual practice, bills are considered to have been presented
§ 105. The act of
to the President at the time they are delivered to the
approval. White House. In 1959, bills delivered to the White
House while the President was abroad were held for
presentation to the President upon his return to the United States by the
White House. The United States Court of Claims held, in Eber Bros. Wine
and Liquor Corp. v. United States, 337 F.2d 624 (1964), cert. denied, 380
U.S. 950 (1965), that where the President had determined, with the infor-
mal acquiescence of leaders of Congress, that bills from the Congress were
to be received at the White House only for presentation to him upon his
return to the United States and the bill delivered to the White House
[52]
was so stamped, the Presidential veto of the bill more than 10 days after
delivery to the White House but less than 10 days after his return to the
country was timely. The second session of the 89th Congress adjourned
sine die while President Johnson was on an Asian tour and receipts for
bills delivered to the White House during that time were marked in like
manner. The approval of a bill by the President of the United States is
valid only with his signature (IV, 3490). Before the adoption of the 20th
amendment to the Constitution (which changed the date of meeting of
Congress to January 3), at the close of a Congress, when the two Houses
prolonged their sessions into the forenoon of March 4, the approvals were
dated on the prior legislative day, because the legislative portion of March
4 belonged to the term of the new Congress. In one instance, however,
bills signed on the forenoon of March 4 were dated as of that day with
the hour and minute of approval given with the date (IV, 3489). The act
of President Tyler in filing with a bill an exposition of his reasons for
signing it was examined and severely criticized by a committee of the House
(IV, 3492); and in 1842 a committee of the House discussed the act of
President Jackson in writing above his signature of approval a memo-
randum of his construction of the bill (IV, 3492). But if the President has
accompanied his message announcing the approval with a statement of
his reasons there has been no question in the House (IV, 3491). The stat-
utes require that bills signed by the President shall be received by the
Archivist of the United States and deposited in his office (1 U.S.C. 106a).
Formerly these bills were received by the Secretary of State (IV, 3485)
and deposited in his office (IV, 3429).
Notice of the signature of a bill by the President is sent by message
§ 106. Notice of
to the House in which it originated (VII, 1089) and that
approval sent by House informs the other (IV, 3429). But this notice is
message. not necessary to the validity of the act (IV, 3495). Some-
times, at the close of a Congress the President informs
the House of such bills as have been approved and of such as have been
allowed to fail (IV, 3499–3502). In one instance he communicated his omis-
sion to sign a bill through the committee appointed to notify him that
Congress was about to adjourn (IV, 3504). A bill that had not actually
passed having been signed by the President, he disregarded it and a new
bill was passed (IV, 3498). Messages of the President giving notice of bills
approved are entered in the Journal and published in the Congressional
Record (V, 6593).
A message withholding approval of a bill, called a veto message, is sent
§ 107. Disapproval (or
to the House in which the bill originated; but it has
veto) of bills. been held that such a message may not be returned
to the President on his request after it has been laid
before the Senate (IV, 3521). In one instance a veto message that had
not been laid before the House was returned to the President on his request
(Aug. 1, 1946, p. 10651). A vetoed bill received in the House by way of
the Senate is considered as if received directly from the President and
[53]
supersedes the regular order of business (IV, 3537; VII, 1109). A veto mes-
sage may not be read after the absence of a quorum has been ascertained,
even though the House be about to adjourn sine die (IV, 3522; VII, 1094);
but the message may be read and acted on at the next session of the same
Congress (IV, 3522). When the President has been prevented by adjourn-
ment from returning a bill with his objections he has sometimes at the
next session communicated his reasons for not approving (V, 6618–6620).
For enrollments returned with ‘‘memoranda of disapproval,’’ see § 113,
infra.
It is possible, although not invariable, that a bill returned with the objec-
§ 108. Consideration of
tions of the President shall be voted on at once (IV,
a vetoed bill in the 3534–3536) and when laid before the House the ques-
House. tion on the passage is considered as pending and no
motion from the floor is required (VII, 1097–1099), but
it has been held that the constitutional mandate that the House shall ‘‘pro-
ceed to reconsider’’ means that the House shall immediately proceed to
consider it under the Rules of the House, such that the ordinary motions
under the Rules of the House (e.g., to refer or to postpone to a day certain)
are in order (IV, 3542–3550; VII, 1100, 1105, 1113; Speaker Wright, Aug.
3, 1988, p. 20280) and (for the stated examples) debatable under the hour
rule (VIII, 2740). When consideration of a veto message is postponed to
a date certain it has the status of unfinished business on that day, such
that the House may proceed to its consideration without motion from the
floor (e.g., May 9, 1996, p. l; Nov. 6, 2007, p. l). Although under clause
4 of rule XVI, and under the precedents the motion for the previous ques-
tion takes precedence over motions to postpone or to refer when a question
is under debate, if the Speaker has laid before the House a veto message
from the President but has not yet stated the question to be on overriding
the veto, that question is not ‘‘under debate’’ and the motion for the pre-
vious question does not take precedence (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988;
Procedure, ch. 24, § 15.8). A resolution asserting that to recognize for a
motion to refer a veto message before stating the question on overriding
the veto would interfere with the constitutional prerogative of the House
to proceed to that question, and directing the Speaker to state the question
on overriding the veto as pending before recognizing for a motion to refer,
did not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House (Speaker
Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20281). A motion to refer a vetoed bill, either
with or without the message, has been held allowable within the constitu-
tional mandate that the House shall ‘‘proceed to reconsider’’ (IV, 3550;
VII, 1104, 1105, 1108, 1114), and in the 101st Congress, a veto pending
as unfinished business was referred with instructions to consider and re-
port promptly (Jan. 24, 1990, p. 421). But although the ordinary motion
to refer may be applied to a vetoed bill, it is not in order to move to recommit
it pending the demand for the previous question or after it is ordered (IV,
3551; VII, 1102). When a veto message is before the House for consideration
de novo or as unfinished business, a motion to refer the message to com-
[54]
mittee takes precedence over the question of passing the bill, the objections
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding (Procedure, ch. 24, § 15.8;
Oct. 25, 1983, p. 29188), but the motion to refer may be laid on the table
(Oct. 25, 1983, p. 29188). A vetoed bill having been rejected by the House,
the message was referred (IV, 3552; VII, 1103). Committees to which vetoed
bills have been referred have sometimes neglected to report (IV, 3523, 3550,
footnotes; VII, 1108, 1114).
A vetoed bill may be laid on the table (IV, 3549; VII, 1105), but it is
still highly privileged and a motion to take it from the table is in order
(IV, 3550; V, 5439). Also a motion to discharge a committee from the consid-
eration of such a bill is privileged (IV, 3532; Aug. 4, 1988, p. 20365; Sept.
19, 1996, p. 23815) and (in the modern practice) is debatable (Mar. 7, 1990,
p. 3620) but is subject to the motion to lay on the table (Sept. 7, 1965,
p. 22958; Aug. 4, 1988, p. 20365). When the motion to discharge is agreed
to, the veto message is pending as unfinished business (Mar. 7, 1990, p.
3621). Although a vetoed bill is always privileged, the same is not true
of a bill reported in lieu of it (IV, 3531; VII, 1103).
If two-thirds of the House to which a bill is returned with the President’s
§ 109. Action on a
objections agree to pass it, and then two-thirds of the
vetoed bill. other House also agree, it becomes a law (IV, 3520).
The yeas and nays are required to pass a bill over the
President’s veto (art. I, sec. 7; IV, 2726, 3520; VII, 1110). The two-thirds
vote required to pass the bill is two-thirds of the Members present and
voting and not two-thirds of the total membership of the House (IV, 3537,
3538; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919)). Only Members
voting should be considered in determining whether two-thirds voted in
the affirmative (VII, 1111). The motion to reconsider may not be applied
to the vote on reconsideration of a bill returned with the objections of the
President (V, 5644; VIII, 2778).
It is the practice for one House to inform the other by message of its
decision that a bill returned with the objections of the President shall not
pass (IV, 3539–3541). A bill passed notwithstanding the objections of the
President is sent by the presiding officer of the House that last acts on
it to the Archivist, who receives it and deposits it in his office (1 U.S.C.
106a). Formerly these bills were sent to the Secretary of State (IV, 3524)
and deposited in his office (IV, 3485).
A bill incorrectly enrolled has been recalled from the President, who
§ 110. Errors in bills
erased his signature (IV, 3506). Bills sent to the Presi-
sent to the President. dent but not yet signed by him are sometimes recalled
by concurrent resolution of the two Houses (IV, 3507–
3509; VII, 1091; Sept. 4, 1962, p. 18405; May 6, 1974, p. 13076), and amend-
ed; but this proceeding is regarded as irregular (IV, 3510–3518). When
the two Houses of Congress request the President by concurrent resolution
to return an enrolled bill and the President honors the request, the ten-
day period under this clause runs anew from the time the bill is re-enrolled
and is again presented to the President. Thus, in the 93d Congress the
[55]
President returned on May 7, 1974 a bill pursuant to the request of Con-

gress (H. Con. Res. 485, May 6, 1974, p. 13076). The bill was again enrolled,
presented to the President on May 7, and marked ‘‘received May 7’’ at
the White House. An error in an enrolled bill that has gone to the President
may also be corrected by a joint resolution (IV, 3519; VII, 1092). In the
99th Congress, two enrollments of a continuing appropriation bill for FY
1987 were presented to and signed by the President, the second correcting
an omission in the first (see P.L. 99–500 and 99–591). In Clinton v. City
of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the can-
cellation procedures of the Line Item Veto Act violated the presentment
clause of article I, section 7 of the Constitution. For a discussion of the
operation of the Act during the period of its effectiveness, see § 1130(6b),
infra.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Matthews v. Zane,
20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 164 (1822); Gardner v. Collector,
§ 110a. Decisions of
the Court. 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 499 (1868); Lapeyre v. United States,
84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 191 (1873); La Abra Silver Mining
Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899); Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919); Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482
(1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938); Clinton v. City of
New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
* * * If any Bill shall not be returned by the

§ 111. Bills that President within ten Days (Sundays
become laws without
the President’s excepted) after it shall have been
approval.
presented to him, the Same shall be
a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, un-
less the Congress by their Adjournment prevent
its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
A bill signed by the President within 10 days (Sunday excepted) after
it has been presented becomes a law even though such signing takes place
when Congress is not in session, whether during the period of an adjourn-
ment to a day certain or after the final adjournment of a session (IV, 3486).
Presidents currently sign bills after adjournment sine die but within 10
days after their receipt. President Truman signed several bills passed in
the 81st Congress after the convening of the 82d Congress but within 10
days (P.L. 910–921; 64 Stat. 1221–1257); and President Reagan, after the
convening of the 98th Congress, approved bills passed and presented in
the 97th Congress. It was formerly contended that the President might
not approve bills during a recess (IV, 3493, 3494), and in one instance,
in 1864, when the President signed a bill after final adjournment of Con-
gress but within 10 days grave doubts were raised and an adverse report
was made by a House committee (IV, 3497). Later opinions of the Attorney
General have been to the effect that the President has the power to approve
[56]
bills within 10 days after they have been presented during the period of
an adjournment to a day certain (IV, 3496) and after an adjournment sine
die (VII, 1088). The Supreme Court has held valid as laws bills signed
by the President within 10 days during a recess for a specified time (La
Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 451 (1899); IV, 3495)
and also those signed after an adjournment sine die (Edwards v. United
States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932)).
A bill that is passed by both Houses of Congress during the first regular
§ 112. The pocket veto.
session of a Congress and presented to the President
less than 10 days (Sundays excepted) before the ad-
journment sine die of that session, but is neither signed by the President,
nor returned to the House in which it originated, does not become a law
(‘‘The Pocket Veto Case,’’ 279 U.S. 655 (1929); VII, 1115). The Supreme
Court has held that the adjournment of the House of origin for not exceed-
ing three days while the other branch of the Congress remained in session,
did not prevent a return of the vetoed bill to the House of origin. Wright
v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938). President Truman during an ad-
journment to a day certain pocket vetoed several bills passed by the 81st
Congress and also, after the convening of the 82d Congress, pocket vetoed
one bill passed in the 81st Congress.
Doubt has existed as to whether a bill that remains with the President
§ 113. Effect of
10 days without his signature, Congress meanwhile be-
adjournment to a day fore the tenth day having adjourned to a day certain,
certain. becomes a law (IV, 3483, 3496; VII, 1115); an opinion
of the Attorney General in 1943 stated that under such
circumstances a bill not signed by the President did not become a law
(40 Op. Att’y Gen. 274 (1943)). However, more recently, where a Member
of the Senate challenged in Federal court the effectiveness of such a pocket
veto, a United States Court of Appeals held that a Senate bill could not
be pocket-vetoed by the President during an ‘‘intrasession’’ adjournment
of Congress to a day certain for more than three days, where the Secretary
of the Senate had been authorized to receive Presidential messages during
such adjournment. Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir., 1974).
See also Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1976). Following a
consent decree in this case, it was announced that President Ford would
utilize a ‘‘return’’ veto, subject to override, in intersession and intrasession
adjournments where authority exists for the appropriate House to receive
such messages notwithstanding the adjournment.
In the 101st, 110th, and 111th Congresses, when the President returned
an enrolled bill during an intersession adjournment, not by way of message
under seal but with a ‘‘memorandum of disapproval’’ setting forth his objec-
tions, the House treated it as a return veto subject to override under article
I, section 7 (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 4; Jan. 15, 2008, p. l; Jan. 12, 2010, p.
l). Similarly, in the 102d, 106th, and 111th Congresses, an enrolled House
bill returned to the Clerk during an intrasession recess, not by way of
message under seal but with a ‘‘memorandum of disapproval’’ setting forth
[57]
the objections of the President, was considered as a return veto (Sept.

11, 1991, p. 22643; Sept. 6, 2000, p. 17156; Nov. 13, 2000, p. 26022; Nov.
15, 2010, p. l). Also in the 102d Congress, President Bush purported on
December 20, 1991, to pocket veto a bill (S. 1176) that was presented to
him on December 9, 1991, notwithstanding that the Congress was in an
intrasession adjournment (from Nov. 27, 1991, until 11:55 a.m., Jan. 3,
1992) rather than an adjournment sine die (see Jan. 23, 1992 [Daily Di-
gest]); and during debate on a subsequent bill (S. 2184) purporting to repeal
the provisions of S. 1176 and to enact instead provisions acceding to the
objections of the President, the Speaker inserted remarks on the pocket
veto in light of modern congressional practice concerning the receipt of
messages and communications during recesses and adjournments (Mar.
3, 1992, p. 4081).
In the 93d Congress, the President returned a House bill without his
signature to the Clerk of the House, who had been authorized to receive
messages from the President during an adjournment to a day certain, and
the President asserted in his veto message that he had ‘‘pocket vetoed’’
the bill during the adjournment of the House to a day certain. The House
regarded the President’s return of the bill without his signature as a veto
within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Constitution and proceeded
to reconsider and to pass the bill over the President’s veto, after postponing
consideration to a subsequent day (motion to postpone, Nov. 18, 1974, p.
36246; veto override, Nov. 20, 1974, p. 36621). Subsequently, on November
21, 1974, the Senate also voted to override the veto (p. 36882) and pursuant
to 1 U.S.C. 106a the Enrolling Clerk of the Senate forwarded the bill to
the Archives for publication as a public law. The Administrator of General
Services at the Archives (now Archivist), upon instructions from the De-
partment of Justice, declined to promulgate the bill as public law on the
day received. The question as to the efficacy of the congressional action
in passing the bill over the President’s veto was mooted when the House
and Senate passed on November 26, 1974 (pp. 37406, 37603), an identical
bill that was signed into law on December 7, 1974 (P.L. 93–516).
As part of the concurrent resolution providing for the adjournments sine
die of the first sessions of the 101st Congress and 105th Congress, the
Congress reaffirmed its position that an intersession adjournment did not
prevent the return of a bill where the Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate
were authorized to receive messages during the adjournment (H. Con. Res.
239, Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156; S. Con. Res. 68, Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26538).
For the views of the Speaker, the Minority Leader, and the Attorney Gen-
eral concerning pocket veto authority during an intrasession adjournment,
see correspondence inserted in the Congressional Record (Jan. 23, 1990,
p. 3; Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18594; Nov. 13, 2000, p. 26022; Oct. 2, 2008, p.
l; May 26, 2010, p. l); and for discussions of the constitutionality of
intersession or intrasession pocket vetoes see Kennedy, ‘‘Congress, The
President, and The Pocket Veto,’’ 63 Va. L. Rev. 355 (1977), and Hearing,
[58]
Subcommittee on Legislative Process, Committee on Rules, on H.R. 849,

101st Congress.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: La Abra Silver
Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899);
Court. Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901); the Pocket
Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929); Edwards v. United
States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938);
Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987) (vacating and remanding as moot
the decision sub nom. Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
3 Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which
§ 115. As to the Concurrence of the Senate and
presentation of orders
and resolutions for House of Representatives may be
approval.
necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the Presi-
dent of the United States; and before the Same
shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or
being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by
two thirds of the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives, according to the Rules and Limita-
tions prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
It has been settled conclusively that a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution should not be presented to the President
for his approval (V, 7040; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378
(1798)). Such joint resolutions, after passage by both Houses, are presented
to the Archivist (1 U.S.C. 106b). Although the requirement of the Constitu-
tion seems specific, the practice of early Congresses was to present to the
President for approval only such concurrent resolutions as were legislative
in effect (IV, 3483, 3484).
For discussion of Presidential approval of a joint resolution extending
the period for State ratification of a constitutional amendment already
submitted to the States, see § 192, infra.
Court. 1 (1892); Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183
U.S. 176 (1901); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983);
Process Gas Consumer’s Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America
463 U.S. 1216 (1983).
[59]
SECTION 8. The Congress shall have Power 1

§ 117. The revenue To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
power.
Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Du-
ties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
2 To borrow Money on the credit
§ 118. The borrowing
power.
of the United States:
3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
§ 119. Power over and among the several States, and

commerce.
with the Indian Tribes;
4 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturaliza-
§ 120. Naturalization tion, and uniform Laws on the sub-

and bankruptcy.
ject of Bankruptcies throughout the
United States;
5 To coin Money, regulate the
§ 121. Coinage, weight,
and measures.
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,
and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6 To provide for the Punishment of counter-
§ 122. Counterfeiting. feiting the Securities and current

Coin of the United States;
7 To establish Post Offices and
§ 123. Post-offices and
post-roads.
Post Roads;
8 To promote the Progress of Science and use-
§ 124. Patents and ful Arts, by securing for limited

copyrights.
Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;
9 To constitute Tribunals inferior
§ 125. Inferior courts.
to the supreme Court;
[60]
10 To define and punish Piracies

§ 126. Piracies and
offenses against law of
nations.
and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offenses against the Law
of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant Letters
§ 127. Declarations of
war and maritime
operations.
of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land
and Water;
The 93d Congress passed over the President’s veto Public Law 93–148,
§ 128. War powers of
relating to the power of Congress to declare war under
Congress and the this clause and the power of the President as Com-
President. mander in Chief under article II, section 2, clause 1.
The law requires that the President report to Congress
on the introduction of United States Armed Forces in the absence of a
declaration of war. The President must terminate use of the Armed Forces
unless Congress, within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or
is required to be submitted, (1) declares war or authorizes use of the Armed
Forces; (2) extends by law the 60-day period; or (3) is physically unable
to meet as result of armed attack. The Act also provided that Congress
could adopt a concurrent resolution requiring the removal of Armed Forces
engaged in foreign hostilities, a provision that should be read in light of
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Sections 6 and 7 of the Act provide
congressional procedures for joint resolutions, bills, and concurrent resolu-
tions introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Act (see § 1130(2), infra).
For further discussion of that Act, and war powers generally, see Deschler,
ch. 13.
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appro-
§ 129. Raising and priation of Money to that Use shall
support of armies.
be for a longer Term than two
Years;
13 To provide and maintain a
§ 130. Provisions for a
navy.
Navy;
14 To make Rules for the Govern-
§ 131. Land and naval
forces.
ment and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
[61]
15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to

§ 132. Calling out the execute the Laws of the Union, sup-
militia.
press Insurrections and repel Inva-
sions;
16 To provide for organizing, arming, and dis-
§ 133. Power over ciplining, the Militia, and for gov-

militia.
erning such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, re-
serving to the States respectively, the Appoint-
ment of the Officers, and the Authority of train-
ing the Militia according to the discipline pre-
scribed by Congress;
17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
§ 134. Power over Cases whatsoever, over such Dis-

territory of the United
States. trict (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of par-
ticular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the
Legislature of the State in which the Same shall
be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arse-
nals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—
And
Congress has provided by law that ‘‘all that part of the territory of the
§ 135. Congressional
United States included within the present limits of the
authority over the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of gov-
District of Columbia. ernment of the United States’’ (4 U.S.C. 71). Pursuant
to its authority under this clause, Congress provided
in 1970 for the people of the District of Columbia to be represented in
the House of Representatives by a Delegate and for a Commission to report
to the Congress on the organization of the government of the District of
Columbia (P.L. 91–405; 84 Stat. 845). For the powers and duties of the
Delegate from the District of Columbia, see rule III (§ 675, infra) and Desch-
ler, ch. 7, § 3. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Gov-
ernment and Governmental Reorganization Act, which reorganized the
[62]
[ARTICLE I, SECTION 9] § 135a–§ 139
governmental structure of the District, provided a charter for local govern-

ment subject to acceptance by a majority of the registered qualified voters
of the District, delegated certain legislative powers to the District, and
implemented certain recommendations of the Commission on the Organiza-
tion of the Government of the District of Columbia (P.L. 93–198; 87 Stat.
774). Section 604 of that Act provides for congressional action on certain
district matters by providing a procedure for approval and disapproval
of certain actions by the District of Columbia Council. The section, as
amended by Public Law 98–473, permits a highly privileged motion to
discharge a joint resolution of approval or disapproval that has not been
reported by the committee to which referred within 20 calendar days after
its introduction (see § 1130(5), infra).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hepburn v. Ellzey,
6 U.S. 445 (1805); National Mutual Insurance Co. of
the Court. D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co, 337 U.S. 582 (1945).
18 To
make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execu-
§ 136. General leg-
islative power.
tion the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any De-
partment or Officer thereof.
SECTION 9. 1 The Migration or Importation of
§ 137. Migration or such Persons as any of the States
importation of
persons. now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may
be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding
ten dollars for each Person.
2 The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
§ 138. Writ of habeas shall not be suspended, unless

corpus.
when in Cases of Rebellion or Inva-
sion the public Safety may require it.
3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post
§ 139. Bills of attainder
and ex post facto
laws.
facto Law shall be passed.
[63]
4 [No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be

§ 140. Capitation and laid, unless in Proportion to the
direct taxes.
Census or Enumeration herein be-
fore directed to be taken.]
This provision was changed in 1913 by the 16th amendment.
5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
§ 141. Export duties.
Articles exported from any State.

6 No Preference shall be given by any Regula-
§ 142. Freedom of tion of Commerce or Revenue to the

commerce.
Ports of one State over those of an-
other: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one
State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in
another.
7 No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
§ 143. Appropriations but in Consequence of Appropria-

and accounting of
public money. tions made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Re-
ceipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time.
8 No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the
§ 144. Titles of nobility United States: And no Person hold-

and gifts from foreign
states. ing any Office of Profit or Trust
under them, shall, without the Con-
sent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind what-
ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Consent has been granted to officers and employees of the government,
§ 145. Foreign gifts
under enumerated conditions, to accept certain gifts
and decorations. and decorations from foreign governments (see 5 U.S.C.
7342). The adoption of this act largely has obviated the
practice of passing private bills to permit the officer or employee to retain
the award. However, where the Speaker (who was one of the officers em-
powered by an earlier law to approve retention of decorations by Members
of the House) was himself tendered an award from a foreign government,
a private law (Private Law 91–244) was enacted to permit him to accept
[64]
and wear the award so that he would not be in the position of reviewing
his own application under the provisions of the law.
Public Law 95–105 amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (now
5 U.S.C. 7342) to designate the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) of the House of Representatives as the employing agency for
the House with respect to foreign gifts and decorations received by Mem-
bers and employees; under that statute the Committee may approve the
acceptance of foreign decorations and has promulgated regulations to carry
out the Act with respect to Members and employees (Jan. 23, 1978, p.
452), and disposes of foreign gifts that may not be retained by the donee.
Opinions of Attorneys General: Gifts from Foreign Prince, 24 Op. Att’y
Gen. 117 (1902); Foreign Diplomatic Commission, 13 Op. Att’y Gen. 538
(1871); Marshal of Florida, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. 409 (1854).
SECTION 10. 1 No State shall enter into any

§ 146. States not to Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
make treaties, coin
money, pass ex post grant Letters of Marque and Re-
facto laws, impair
contracts, etc.
prisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or
Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or
grant any Title of Nobility.
2 No State shall, without the Consent of the
§ 147. States not to lay Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties

imposts or duties.
on Imports or Exports, except what
may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s in-
spection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Ex-
ports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be sub-
ject to the Revision and Controul of the Con-
gress.
3 No State shall, without the Consent of Con-
§ 148. States not to lay gress, lay any Duty of Tonnage,

tonnage taxes, make
compacts, or go to keep Troops, or Ships of War in
war.
time of Peace, enter into any Agree-
[65]
§ 149–§ 151 [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1]
ment or Compact with another State, or with a

foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not
admit of delay.
ARTICLE II.
SECTION 1. 1 The executive Power shall be
§ 149. Terms of the vested in a President of the United
President and Vice
President. States of America. He shall hold his
Office during the Term of four
years, and together with the Vice President, cho-
sen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
George Washington took the oath of office as the first President on April
§ 150. Commencement
30, 1789 (III, 1986). The two Houses of the First Con-
of President’s term of gress found, after examination by a joint committee,
office. that by provisions made in the Federal Constitution
and by the Continental Congress, the term of the Presi-
dent had, notwithstanding, begun on March 4, 1789 (I, 3). The 20th amend-
ment, declared to have been ratified on February 6, 1933, provides that
Presidential terms shall end and successor terms shall begin at noon on
January 20. Thus, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term began on March 4,
1933, but ended at noon on January 20, 1937. Formerly, when March 4
fell on Sunday, the public inauguration of the President occurred at noon
on March 5 (III, 1996; VI, 449). Following ratification of the 20th amend-
ment, the first time inauguration day fell on Sunday was January 20,
1957, and Dwight David Eisenhower took the oath for his second term
in a private ceremony at the White House on that day followed by a public
inauguration ceremony on the steps of the East Front of the Capitol on
Monday, January 21, 1957. A similar scenario was followed at the begin-
ning of President Reagan’s second term, with the oath being given at the
White House on January 20, 1985, followed by a public ceremony on Mon-
day, January 21, in the Rotunda of the Capitol. The 22d amendment pro-
vides that no person shall be elected President more than twice.
2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as
§ 151. Electors of the Legislature thereof may direct,
President and Vice
President and their a Number of Electors, equal to the
qualifications.
whole Number of Senators and Rep-
resentatives to which the State may be entitled
[66]
[ARTICLE II, SECTION 1] § 152–§ 152a
in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa-

tive, or Person holding an Office of Trust or
Profit under the United States, shall be ap-
pointed an Elector.
Questions of the qualifications of electors have arisen, and in one in-
stance certain ones were found disqualified, but be-
qualifications of cause their number was not sufficient to affect the re-
electors. sult and there was doubt as to what tribunal should
pass on the question the votes were counted (III, 1941).
In other cases there were objections, but the votes were counted (III, 1972–
1974, 1979). In one instance an elector found to be disqualified resigned
both offices, whereupon he was made eligible to fill the vacancy thus caused
among electors (III, 1975).
3 [The
Electors shall meet in their respective
States and vote by Ballot for two
§ 152a. Original
provision for failure
Persons, of whom one at least shall
of electoral college to
choose.
not be an Inhabitant of the same
State with themselves. And they shall make a
List of all the Persons voted for, and of the
Number of Votes for each; which List they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat
of Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the
Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and
House of Representatives, open all the Certifi-
cates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The
Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a ma-
jority of the whole Number of Electors ap-
pointed: and if there be more than one who have
such Majority, and have an equal Number of
Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority,
then from the five highest on the List the said
[67]
House shall in like manner chuse the President.

But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each
State having one Vote; A quorum for this pur-
pose shall consist of a Member or Members from
two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all
the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President,
the Person having the greatest Number of Votes
of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But
if there should remain two or more who have
equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them
by Ballot the Vice-President.]
This third clause of article II, section 1 was superseded by the 12th
amendment (see §§ 219–223, infra).
4 The
Congress may determine
§ 153. Time of choosing
the Time of chusing the Electors,
electors and time at
which their votes are
given. and the Day on which they shall
give their Votes; which Day shall be the same
throughout the United States.
The time for choosing electors has been fixed on ‘‘the Tuesday next after
the first Monday in November, in every fourth year’’; and the electors in
each State ‘‘meet and give in their votes on the first Monday after the
second Wednesday in December next following their appointment, at such
place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct’’ (III, 1914;
VI, 438; 3 U.S.C. 1, 7). The statute also provides for transmitting to the
President of the Senate certificates of the appointment of the electors and
of their votes (III, 1915–1917; VI, 439; 3 U.S.C. 11).
5 NoPerson except a natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United States, at
President of the
the time of the Adoption of this
United States.
Constitution, shall be eligible to the

Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have at-
tained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
[68]
[ARTICLE II, SECTION 1] § 155–§ 157
fourteen Years a Resident within the United

States.
6 In Case of the Removal of the President from
§ 155. Succession in Office, or of his Death, Resignation,

case of removal,
death, resignation, or or Inability to discharge the Powers
disability of President
and Vice President.
and Duties of the said Office, the
Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law pro-
vide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resigna-
tion or Inability, both of the President and Vice
President, declaring what Officer shall then act
as President, and such Officer shall act accord-
ingly, until the Disability be removed, or a
President shall be elected.
Amendment XXV provides for filling a vacancy in the Office of the Vice
President and, when the President is unable to perform
§ 156. Resignation of
the President. the duties of his office, for the Vice President to assume
those powers and duties as Acting President. During
the 93d Congress, President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office on Au-
gust 9, 1974, by delivering a signed resignation to the Office of the Sec-
retary of State, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 20. Pursuant to amendment XXV,
Vice President Gerald R. Ford became President and the House and Senate
confirmed his nominee, Nelson A. Rockefeller, to become Vice President
(December 19, 1974, p. 41516).
Congress also has provided for the performance of the duties of the Presi-
dent in case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the Presi-
dent and Vice President (3 U.S.C. 19).
7 The President shall, at stated Times, receive
§ 157. Compensation of for his Services, a Compensation,
President.
which shall neither be encreased
nor diminished during the Period for which he
shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from
the United States, or any of them.
The compensation of the President is established by law (3 U.S.C. 102).
In addition, the law provides an expense allowance (3 U.S.C. 102) and
a travel allowance (3 U.S.C. 103).
[69]
8 Before he enter on the Execution of his Of-

§ 158. Oath of the fice, he shall take the following
President.
Oath or Affirmation:—‘‘I do sol-
emnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully exe-
cute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, pro-
tect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.’’
The taking of this oath, which is termed the inauguration, is made the
occasion of certain ceremonies that are arranged for by
§ 159. Inauguration of
the President. a joint committee of the two Houses (III, 1998, 1999;
VI, 451). For many years the oath was normally taken
at the east portico of the Capitol, although in earlier years it was taken
in the Senate Chamber or Hall of the House (III, 1986–1995). On March
4, 1909, owing to inclement weather, the President-elect took the oath
and delivered his inaugural address in the Senate Chamber (VI, 447). And
when Vice President Fillmore succeeded to the vacancy in the Office of
President, Congress being in session, he took the oath in the Hall of the
House in the presence of the Senate and House (III, 1997). In 1945 Franklin
D. Roosevelt, who had been elected for his fourth term as President, took
the oath of office on the south portico at the White House. On August
9, 1974, Gerald R. Ford, who as Vice President succeeded to the Presidency
following the resignation of President Nixon on that day, was sworn in
in the East Room of the White House. The West Front of the Capitol was
first used for the inaugural ceremony for Ronald W. Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981.
Because of extreme cold, the public administration of the oath was for
the first time held in the Rotunda of the Capitol, rather than on the West
Front, as scheduled, on January 21, 1985. Permission for such use is au-
thorized by concurrent resolution (see, e.g., Oct. 9, 1984, p. 30926).
SECTION 2. 1 The President shall be Com-

§ 160. The President mander in Chief of the Army and
the Commander in
Chief. Navy of the United States, and of
the Militia of the several States,
when called into the actual Service of the United
States; he may require the Opinion, in writing,
§ 161. Opinions of the of the principal Officer in each of
President’s advisers.
the executive Departments, upon
any Subject relating to the Duties of their re-
[70]
spective Offices, and he shall have Power to

§ 162. President grants grant Reprieves and Pardons for
reprieves and
pardons. Offences against the United States,
except in Cases of Impeachment.
The 93d Congress passed over the President’s veto Public Law 93–148,
§ 163. War powers of
relating to the power of Congress to declare war under
Congress and the article I, section 8, clause 11 (§ 127, supra) and the
President. power of the President as Commander in Chief under
this clause. For further discussion of the reports to Con-
gress required and the procedure for congressional action provided under
Public Law 93–148, see § 128, supra.
In 1974, President Ford exercised his power under the last phrase of
§ 164. Pardon of
this clause by pardoning former President Nixon for
former President. any crimes he might have committed during a certain
period in office (Proclamation 4311, September 8, 1974).
The former President had resigned on August 9, 1974, following the deci-
sion of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House a rec-
ommendation of impeachment (H. Rept. 93–1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219).
2 He shall have Power, by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, to make
§ 165. President makes
treaties.
Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate,
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
§ 166. Appointing Ministers and Consuls, Judges of
power of the
President. the Supreme Court, and all other
Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided
for, and which shall be established by Law; but
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment
of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in
the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
the Heads of Departments.
The power of the President to appoint diplomatic representatives to for-
eign governments and to determine their rank is derived from the Constitu-
tion and may not be circumscribed by statutory enactments (VII, 1248).
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) the Supreme Court held that any
[71]
appointee exercising significant authority (not merely internal delegable

authorities within the legislative branch) pursuant to the laws of the
United States is an Officer of the United States and must therefore be
appointed pursuant to this clause, and that Congress cannot by law vest
such appointment authority in its own officers or require that Presidential
appointments be subject to confirmation by both Houses. For a discussion
of the role of the House with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see
§ 597, infra.
3 The President shall have Power to fill up all
§ 167. President’s Vacancies that may happen during
power to fill vacancies
during recess of the the Recess of the Senate, by grant-
Senate.
ing Commissions which shall expire
at the End of their next Session.
SECTION 3. He shall from time to time give to
the Congress Information of the
§ 168. Messages from
the President.
State of the Union, and recommend
to their Consideration such Measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient; * * *
In the early years of the Government the President made a speech to
Congress on its assembling (V, 6629), but in 1801 President Jefferson dis-
continued this practice and transmitted a message in writing. This protocol
was followed until April 8, 1913, when the custom of addressing Congress
in person was resumed by President Wilson and, with the exception of
President Hoover (VIII, 3333) has been followed generally by subsequent
Presidents. A message in writing is usually communicated to both Houses
on the same day, but an accompanying document can be sent to but one
House (V, 6616, 6617). The President’s State of the Union message deliv-
ered in person to the 95th Congress, second Session, together with separate
hand-delivered written messages, were referred on motion to the Union
Calendar and ordered printed (Jan. 19, 1978, p. 152). In early years con-
fidential messages were often sent and considered in secret session of the
House (V, 7251, 7252).
By law (31 U.S.C. 1105), the President is required to transmit the Budget
to Congress on or after the first Monday in January
§ 169. Messages
required by law. but not later than the first Monday in February each
year. In addition, the President is required to submit
a supplemental budget summary by July 16 each year (31 U.S.C. 1106).
Submission of the Economic Report of the President is required within
10 days after the submission of the budget (15 U.S.C. 1022). The Congres-
sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601) re-
quires the transmittal to Congress by the President of amendments and
[72]
revisions related to the budget on or before April 10 and July 15 of each

year. In addition, the Act provides for the transmittal of messages pro-
posing rescissions and deferrals of budget authority (2 U.S.C. 682).
When the President has expressed desire to address Congress in person
a concurrent resolution is adopted by both Houses arranging for a joint
session to receive the message. The Speaker presides and the President
of the Senate (the Vice President) sits to the right of the Speaker, but
in the absence of the Vice President, the President pro tempore sits to
the left of the Speaker (Nov. 27, 1963, p. 22838).
The ceremony of receiving a message in writing is simple (V, 6591), and
§ 170. Reception of
may occur during consideration of a question of privi-
messages from the lege (V, 6640–6642) or before the organization of the
President. House (V, 6647–6649) and in the absence of a quorum
(V, 6650; VIII, 3339; clause 7 of rule XX).
But, with the exception of vetoes, messages are regularly laid before
the House only at the time prescribed by the rule for the order of business
(V, 6635–6638) within the discretion of the Speaker (VIII, 3341). Although
a message of the President is always read, the latest rulings have not
permitted the reading of the accompanying documents to be demanded
as a matter of right (V, 5267–5271; VII, 1108). A concurrent resolution
providing for a joint session to receive the President’s message was held
to be of the highest privilege (VIII, 3335).
* * * he may, on extraordinary Occasions, con-

§ 171. Power of vene both Houses, or either of
President as to
convening and them, and in Case of Disagreement
adjourning Congress.
between them, with Respect to the
Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; * * *
In certain exigencies the President may convene Congress at a place
other than the seat of government (I, 2; 2 U.S.C. 27). Congress has on
occasion been convened by the President (I, 10, 11; Nov. 17, 1947, p. 10578;
July 26, 1948, p. 9362), and in one instance, when Congress had provided
by law for meeting, the President called it together on an earlier day (I,
12). The Congress having adjourned on July 27, 1947, p. 10521, and on
June 20, 1948, p. 9350, to a day certain, the President called it together
on an earlier date than that to which it adjourned (Nov. 17, 1947, p. 10577;
July 26, 1948, p. 9362). There has been some discussion as to whether
or not there is a distinction between a session called by the President
and other sessions of Congress (I, 12, footnote).
[73]
* * * he shall receive Ambassadors and other

§ 172. President public Ministers; he shall take Care
receives ambassadors,
executes the laws, and That the Laws be faithfully exe-
commissions officers.
cuted, and shall Commission all the
officers of the United States.
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President, and
all civil Officers of the United
§ 173. Impeachment of
civil officers.
States, shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis-
demeanors.
In the Blount trial the managers contended that all citizens of the United
States were liable to impeachment, but this contention
§ 174. As to the officers
who may be was not admitted (III, 2315), and in the Belknap trial
impeached. both managers and counsel for respondent agreed that
a private citizen, apart from offense in an office, might
not be impeached (III, 2007). But resignation of the office does not prevent
impeachment for crime or misdemeanor therein (III, 2007, 2317, 2444,
2445, 2459, 2509). In Blount’s case it was decided that a Senator was not
a civil officer within the meaning of the impeachment provisions of the
Constitution (III, 2310, 2316). Questions have also arisen as to whether
or not the Congressional Printer (III, 1785), or a vice consul-general (III,
2515), might be impeached. Proceedings for the impeachment of territorial
judges have been taken in several instances (III, 2486, 2487, 2488), al-
though various opinions have been given that such an officer is not im-
peachable (III, 2022, 2486, 2493). A committee of the House by majority
vote held a Commissioner of the District of Columbia not to be a civil
officer subject to impeachment under the Constitution (VI, 548). An inde-
pendent counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. 593 (a statute currently ineffec-
tive under 28 U.S.C. 599) may be impeached under 28 U.S.C. 596(a), and
a resolution impeaching such an independent counsel constitutes a ques-
tion of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560).
As to what are impeachable offenses there has been much discussion
(III, 2008, 2019, 2020, 2356, 2362, 2379–2381, 2405,
§ 175. Nature of
impeachable offenses. 2406, 2410, 2498, 2510; VI, 455; Impeachment of Rich-
ard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, H. Rept. 93–1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; Asso-
ciate Justice William O. Douglas, Final Report by the Special Sub-
committee on H. Res. 920, Committee on the Judiciary, Sept. 17, 1970;
Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States,
H. Rept. 105–830, Dec. 16, 1998). For a time the theory that indictable
[74]
[ARTICLE II, SECTION 4] § 176
offenses only were impeachable was stoutly maintained and as stoutly de-
nied (III, 2356, 2360–2362, 2379–2381, 2405, 2406, 2410, 2416); but on
the 10th and 11th articles of the impeachment of President Andrew John-
son the House concluded to impeach for other than indictable offenses (III,
2418), and in the Swayne trial the theory was definitely abandoned (III,
2019). Although there has not been definite concurrence in the claim of
the managers in the trial of the President that an impeachable offense
is any misbehavior that shows disqualification to hold and exercise the
office, whether moral, intellectual, or physical (III, 2015), the House has
impeached judges for improper personal habits (III, 2328, 2505), and in
the impeachment of the President one of the articles charged him with
‘‘intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues’’ in public address-
es, tending to the harm of the Government (III, 2420). There was no convic-
tion under these charges except in the single case of Judge Pickering, who
was charged with intoxication on the bench (III, 2328–2341). As to the
impeachment of judges for other delinquencies, there has been much con-
tention as to whether they may be impeached for any breach of good behav-
ior (III, 2011, 2016, 2497), or only for judicial misconduct occurring in the
actual administration of justice in connection with the court (III, 2010,
2013, 2017). The intent of the judge (III, 2014, 2382) as related to mistakes
of the law, and the relations of intent to conviction have been discussed
at length (III, 2014, 2381, 2382, 2518, 2519). The statutes make nonresi-
dence of a judge an impeachable offense, and the House has taken steps
to impeach for this cause (III, 2476, 2512). There has, however, been some
question as to the power of Congress to make an impeachable offense (III,
2014, 2015, 2021, 2512). Usurpation of power has been examined several
times as a cause for impeachment (III, 2404, 2508, 2509, 2516, 2517). There
also has been discussion as to whether or not there is distinction between
a misdemeanor and a high misdemeanor (III, 2270, 2367, 2492). Review
of impeachments in Congress showing the nature of charges upon which
impeachments have been brought and judgments of the Senate thereon
(VI, 466). The report accompanying a resolution to impeach President Clin-
ton, and the debate in the House thereon, included discussion of the nature
of an impeachable offense (H. Rept. 105–830; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828).
Of the four articles of impeachment of President Clinton reported by the
Committee on the Judiciary ((1) perjury in grand jury, (2) perjury in a
civil deposition, (3) obstruction of justice, and (4) improper responses to
written questions from the Committee on the Judiciary), only the first
and third were adopted by the House (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28110). The Presi-
dent was acquitted by the Senate on each article (Feb. 12, 1999, p. 2376).
The articles of impeachment adopted by the House in 1936 against Judge
§ 176. Later
Ritter charged a variety of judicial misconduct, includ-
impeachment ing violations of criminal law. The seventh and general
inquiries. article, upon which Judge Ritter was convicted by the
Senate, charged general misconduct to bring his court
into scandal and disrepute and to destroy public confidence in his court
[75]
§ 176 [ARTICLE II, SECTION 4]
and in the judicial system (Impeachment by the House, Mar. 2, 1936, p.

3091; Conviction by the Senate, Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). Following his con-
viction by the Senate, former Judge Ritter brought an action for back sal-
ary, contending that the Senate had tried and convicted him for non-
impeachable offenses. The U.S. Court of Claims held that the Senate’s
power to try impeachments was exclusive and not subject to judicial review.
Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cls. 293 (1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668
(1937).
In 1970 a special subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary consid-
ered charges of impeachment against Associate Justice Douglas of the Su-
preme Court. The subcommittee recommended against his impeachment
but concluded that a Federal judge could be impeached (1) for judicial
conduct that is a serious dereliction from public duty and (2) for nonjudicial
conduct that is criminal in nature (Associate Justice William O. Douglas,
Final Report by the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920, Committee on
the Judiciary, September 17, 1970).
In 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary investigated charges of impeach-
ment against President Nixon (Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349), and determined to
recommend his impeachment to the House. The President having resigned,
the committee reported to the House without submitting a resolution of
impeachment, and the House accepted the report by resolution (Aug. 20,
1974, p. 29361). The report of the committee included the text of the three
articles of impeachment adopted by the committee. The committee had
concluded that impeachable offenses need not be indictable offenses and
recommended impeachment of the President (1) for violating his oath of
office and his duty under the Constitution by preventing, obstructing, and
impeding the administration of justice; (2) for engaging in a course of con-
duct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the adminis-
tration of justice, and contravening the laws governing executive agencies;
and (3) for failing to honor subpoenas issued by the Committee on the
Judiciary in the course of its impeachment inquiry (Impeachment of Rich-
ard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary,
H. Rept. 93–1305, Aug. 20, 1974, printed in full in the Cong. Record, Aug.
22, 1974, p. 29219).
In 1986, for the first time since 1936, the House agreed to a resolution
impeaching a Federal district judge. Judge Harry Claiborne had been con-
victed of falsifying Federal income tax returns. His final appeal was denied
by the Supreme Court in April, and he began serving his prison sentence
in May. Because he declined to resign, however, Judge Claiborne was still
receiving his judicial salary and, absent impeachment, would resume the
bench on his release from prison. Consequently, a resolution of impeach-
ment was introduced on June 3, and on July 16, the Committee on the
Judiciary reported to the House four articles of impeachment against Judge
Claiborne. On July 22, the resolution was called up as a question of privi-
lege and agreed to by a recorded vote of 406 yeas, 0 nays. After trial in
[76]
[ARTICLE II, SECTION 4] § 176
the Senate, Judge Claiborne was convicted on three of the four articles
of impeachment and removed from office on October 9, 1986.
In 1988, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee
on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the House
impeaching Federal district judge Alcee L. Hastings for high crimes and
misdemeanors specified in 17 articles of impeachment, some of them ad-
dressing allegations on which the judge had been acquitted in a Federal
criminal trial (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). No trial in the Senate was had
before the adjournment of the 100th Congress. In the 101st Congress, the
House reappointed managers to conduct this impeachment in the Senate
(Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); the Senate began its deliberations on March 15, 1989
(p. 4219); conviction and removal from office occurred on October 20, 1989
(p. 25335). Also in the 101st Congress, the Senate convicted Federal district
judge Walter L. Nixon on two of the three impeachment charges brought
against him (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101). For further discussion of the continu-
ance of impeachment proceedings in a succeeding Congress, see § 620,
infra.
In 1998 the House agreed to a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules, referring to the Committee on the Judiciary a commu-
nication from an independent counsel transmitting under 28 U.S.C. 595(c)
evidence of possible impeachable offenses by President Clinton, and re-
stricting access to the communication and to meetings and hearings there-
on (Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged resolu-
tion reported from the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an impeach-
ment inquiry by that committee and investing it with special investigative
authorities to facilitate the inquiry (Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). The Committee
on the Judiciary filed with the House a privileged report accompanying
a resolution containing four articles of impeachment against President
Clinton that alleged: (1) the President gave perjurious, false, and mis-
leading testimony to a grand jury; (2) the President gave perjurious, false,
and misleading testimony in a Federal civil action; (3) the President pre-
vented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice relating to
a Federal civil action; and (4) the President abused his office, impaired
the administration of justice, and contravened the authority of the legisla-
tive branch by his response to 81 written questions submitted by the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819). The chair of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary called up the resolution on December 18, 1998
(p. 27828).
In 2008, the House agreed to an unreported resolution authorizing an
impeachment inquiry of Federal district judge G. Thomas Porteous by the
Committee on the Judiciary and investing it with special investigative au-
thorities to facilitate the inquiry (Sept. 17, 2008, p. l), which was contin-
ued in the next Congress (Jan. 13, 2009, p. l). In 2010, the House adopted
a resolution reported from the committee and called up as a question of
the privileges of the House impeaching the judge for high crimes and mis-
demeanors specified in 4 articles of impeachment (Mar. 11, 2010, p. l).
[77]
§ 177–§ 178 [ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 1–2]
In 2009, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee

on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the House
impeaching Federal district judge Samuel B. Kent for high crimes and
misdemeanors specified in 4 articles of impeachment, some of them ad-
dressing allegations on which the judge had been convicted in a Federal
criminal trial (June 19, 2009, p. l).
A resolution offered from the floor to permit the Delegate of the District
of Columbia to vote on the articles of impeachment was held not to con-
stitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Dec. 18,
1998, p. 27825). To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment
proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held not germane
(Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28100).
For further discussion of impeachment proceedings, see §§ 601–620,
infra; § 31, supra, and Deschler, ch. 14.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the United
§ 177. The judges, their States, shall be vested in one su-
terms, and
compensation. preme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services,
a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2. 1 The judicial Power shall extend
§ 178. Extent of the to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
judicial power.
arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority;—
to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admi-
ralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controver-
sies to which the United States shall be a
Party;—to Controversies between two or more
[78]
[ARTICLE III, SECTION 3] § 178a
States;—between a State and Citizens of an-

other State;—between Citizens of different
States;—between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Decisions of the Supreme Court involving legislative standing to bring
cases in Federal court include Coleman v. Miller, 307
the Court on U.S. 433 (1939); Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996
legislative standing.(1979); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984); Whitmore
v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990); and, most recently,
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), holding that Member plaintiffs must
have alleged a ‘‘personal stake’’ in having an actual injury redressed, rather
than an ‘‘institutional injury’’ that is ‘‘abstract and widely dispersed.’’ See
also the 11th amendment (§ 218, infra).
2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
§ 179. Original and public Ministers and Consuls, and

appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court. those in which a State shall be
Party, the supreme Court shall
have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regula-
tions as the Congress shall make.
3 The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of
§ 180. Places of trial of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and

crimes by jury.
such Trial shall be held in the State
where the said Crimes shall have been com-
mitted; but when not committed within any
State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places
as the Congress may by Law have directed.
SECTION 3. 1 Treason against the United
§ 181. Treason against States, shall consist only in levying
the United States.
War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
[79]
§ 182–§ 186 [ARTICLE IV, SECTION 1]
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on

the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same
overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2 The Congress shall have Power to declare the
§ 182. Punishment for Punishment of Treason, but no At-

treason.
tainder of Treason shall work Cor-
ruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the
Life of the Person Attainted.
ARTICLE IV.
SECTION 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be
§ 183. Each State to given in each State to the Public
give credit to acts,
records, etc., of other Acts, Records, and judicial Pro-
States.
ceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Pro-
ceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
§ 184. Privileges and SECTION 2. 1 The Citizens of each
immunities of citizens.
State shall be entitled to all Privi-
leges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.
2 A Person charged in any State with Treason,
§ 185. Extradition for Felony, or other Crime, who shall

treason, felony, or
other crime. flee from Justice, and be found in
another State, shall on Demand of
the executive Authority of the State from which
he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
3 No Person held to Service or Labour in one
§ 186. Persons held to State, under the Laws thereof, es-

service or labor.
caping into another, shall, in Con-
sequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
discharged from such Service or Labour, but
[80]
[ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 3–4] § 187–§ 189
shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to

whom such Service or Labour may be due.
SECTION 3. 1 New States may be admitted by
§ 187. Admission and the Congress into this Union; but
formation of new
States. no new State shall be formed or
erected within the Jurisdiction of
any other State; nor any State be formed by the
Junction of two or more States, or Parts of
States, without the Consent of the Legislatures
of the States concerned as well as of the Con-
gress.
2 The Congress shall have Power to dispose of
§ 188. Power of and make all needful Rules and

Congress over
territory and other Regulations respecting the Terri-
national property.
tory or other Property belonging to
the United States; and nothing in this Constitu-
tion shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
Claims of the United States, or of any particular
State.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that
the property clause does not prohibit the transfer of United States property
to foreign nations through self-executing treaties. Edwards v. Carter, 580
F.2d 1055 (1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 907 (1978).
SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee

to every State in this Union a Re-
§ 189. Republican form
of government and
publican Form of Government, and
protection from
shall protect each of them against

domestic violence
guaranteed to the
States. Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic violence.
[81]
§ 190–§ 191 [ARTICLE V]
ARTICLE V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both
§ 190. Amendments to Houses shall deem it necessary,
the Constitution.
shall propose Amendments to this
Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legis-
latures of two thirds of the several States, shall
call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all In-
tents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States, or by Conventions
in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other
Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which
may be made prior to the Year One thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner af-
fect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Amendments to the Constitution are proposed in the form of joint resolu-
§ 191. Form of and
tions, which have their several readings and are en-
action on amendments rolled and signed by the presiding officers of the two
to the Constitution. Houses (V, 7029, footnote), but are not presented to the
President for his approval (V, 7040; see discussion
under § 115, supra; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798)).
They are filed with the Archivist who, under the law (1 U.S.C. 106b; 1
U.S.C. 112), has the responsibility for the certification and publication of
such amendments, once they are ratified by the States. Under the earlier
procedure, the two Houses sometimes requested the President to transmit
to the States certain proposed amendments (V, 7041, 7043), but a concur-
rent resolution to that end was without privilege (VIII, 3508). The Presi-
dent notified Congress by message of the promulgation of the ratification
of a constitutional amendment (V, 7044).
[82]
[ARTICLE V] § 192
The vote required on a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the

§ 192. The two-thirds
Constitution is two-thirds of those voting, a quorum
vote on proposed being present, and not two-thirds of the entire member-
amendments. ship (V, 7027, 7028; VIII, 3503). The majority required
to pass a constitutional amendment, like the majority
required to pass a bill over the President’s veto (VII, 1111) and the majority
required to adopt a motion to suspend the rules (Dec. 16, 1981, pp. 31850,
31851, 31855, 31856), is two-thirds of those Members voting either in the
affirmative or negative, a quorum being present, and Members who only
indicate that they are ‘‘present’’ are not counted in this computation (Nov.
15, 1983, p. 32685). The requirement of the two-thirds vote applies to the
vote on final passage and not to amendments (V, 7031, 7032; VIII, 3504),
or prior stages (V, 7029, 7030), but is required if the House votes on agree-
ing to Senate amendments (V, 7033, 7034; VIII, 3505), or on agreeing to
a conference report (V, 7036). One House having, by a two-thirds vote,
passed in amended form a proposed constitutional amendment from the
other House, and then having by a majority vote receded from its amend-
ment, the constitutional amendment was held not to be passed (V, 7035).
In the 95th Congress, both the House and Senate agreed by a majority
vote to House Joint Resolution 638, extending the time period for ratifica-
tion by the States of the Equal Rights Amendment, where House Joint
Resolution 208 of the 92d Congress, proposing the amendment, had pro-
vided for a seven-year ratification period. The House determined, by laying
on the table by a record vote a privileged resolution asserting that a vote
of two-thirds of the Members present and voting was required to pass a
joint resolution extending the ratification period for a constitutional
amendment already submitted to the States, that only a majority vote
was required on such a measure (H.J. Res. 638; Speaker O’Neill, Aug.
15, 1978, p. 26203).
The joint resolution extending the ratification period for the Equal Rights
Amendment was delivered to the President, who signed it although ex-
pressing doubt as to the necessity for his doing so (Presidential Documents,
Oct. 19, 1978). When sent to the Archivist, the joint resolution was not
assigned a public law number, but the Archivist notified the States of the
action of the Congress in extending the ratification period. For a judicial
decision voiding this extension, see Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107
(D.C.D. Idaho, 1981), judgment stayed sub nom. National Organization
of Women v. Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982), vacated and remanded to dismiss,
459 U.S. 809 (1982).
The yeas and nays are not required to pass a joint resolution proposing
to amend the Constitution (V, 7038–7039; VIII, 3506).
Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall, or rescind, its
assent to a constitutional amendment (V, 7042; footnotes to §§ 225, 234,
infra) but has not been the subject of a final judicial determination (see
Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C.D. Idaho, 1981), judgment stayed
[83]
§ 193–§ 197 [ARTICLE VI]
sub nom. National Organization of Women v. Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982),
vacated and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S. 809 (1982)).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: National Prohibi-
tion Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920); Hawke v. Smith, 253
Court. U.S. 221 (1920); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921);
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); Coleman v. Mil-
ler, 307 U.S. 433 (1939); Chandler v. Wise, 307 U.S. 474 (1939).
ARTICLE VI.
1 All Debts contracted and Engagements en-
§ 194. Validity of debts tered into, before the Adoption of
and engagements.
this Constitution, shall be as valid
against the United States under this Constitu-
tion, as under the Confederation.
2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the
§ 195. Constitution, United States which shall be made

laws, and treaties the
supreme law of the in Pursuance thereof; and all Trea-
land.
ties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3 The Senators and Representatives before
§ 196. Oaths of public mentioned, and the Members of the

officers; and
prohibition of several State Legislatures, and all
religious tests.
executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to sup-
port this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.
The form of the oath is prescribed by statute (5 U.S.C. 3331; I, 128):
‘‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
§ 197. Form of oath.
and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
[84]
[ARTICLE VI] § 198–§ 199
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any men-
tal reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help
me God.’’
The Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), provides that on the organization
§ 198. Administration
of the House and previous to entering on any other busi-
of oath at ness the oath shall be administered by any Member
organization. (generally the Member with longest continuous service)
(I, 131; VI, 6) to the Speaker and by the Speaker to
the other Members and Clerk (I, 130). The Act has at times been considered
in the House as directory merely (I, 118, 242, 243, 245; VI, 6); but at other
times has been observed carefully (I, 118, 140). The Act was cited by the
Clerk in recognizing for nominations for Speaker as being of higher con-
stitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker
and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending
the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of the majority
party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115).
Previously it was the custom to administer the oath by State delegations,
but beginning with the 71st Congress Members-elect have been sworn in
en masse (VI, 8). The Clerk supplies printed copies of the oath to Members
and Delegates who have taken the oath in accordance with law, which
shall be subscribed by the Members and Delegates and delivered to the
Clerk to be recorded in the Journal and Congressional Record as conclusive
proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath in accordance with
law (2 U.S.C. 25). See Deschler, ch. 2. Where two Members-elect partici-
pated in various House and committee business before taking the oath
of office, the House adopted a resolution (1) correcting the results of record
votes to remove mention of them, and (2) ratifying the following activities
involving one or both of them: election to and participation in standing
committee; introduction and numbering of measures; submission of items
to the Congressional Record; co-sponsorship of measures; and non-voting
participation in floor proceedings (Jan. 7, 2011, p. l).
The Speaker possesses no arbitrary power in the administration of the
oath (I, 134), and when objection is made the question
Speaker in must be decided by the House and not by the Chair
administering the (I, 519, 520). An objection prevents the Speaker from
oath. administering the oath of his own authority, even
though the credentials be regular in form (I, 135–138).
The Speaker has frequently declined to administer the oath in cases where-
in the House has, by its action, indicated that the Speaker should not
do so (I, 139, 140). And in case of doubt the Speaker has waited the instruc-
tion of the House (I, 396; VI, 11). There has been discussion as to the
competency of a Speaker pro tempore to administer the oath (I, 170), and
in the absence of the Speaker a Member-elect waited until the Speaker
could be present (I, 179), but in 1920 a Speaker pro tempore whose designa-
tion by the Speaker had been approved by the House, administered the
[85]
§ 200–§ 202 [ARTICLE VI]
oath (VI, 20). The House may authorize the Speaker to administer the
oath away from the House (I, 169), or may, in such a case, authorize another
than the Speaker to administer the oath (I, 170; VI, 14). For forms used
in this procedure, see VI, 14. The Speaker has requested that guests in
the gallery rise with the Members during the administration of the oath
of office to a Member-elect (Nov. 12, 1991, p. 31255).
Members-elect have been sworn at the beginning of a second session
before the ascertainment of a quorum (I, 176–178), but
of the oath as related when the Clerk called the second session of the 87th
to the quorum. Congress to order, Members-elect were not sworn be-
fore ascertainment of a quorum and election of Speaker
McCormack to succeed Speaker Rayburn, who had died during the adjourn-
ment sine die (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). Members-elect have also been sworn
where a roll call or other ascertainment has shown the absence of a quorum
(I, 178, 181, 182; VI, 21) but in one instance, however, the Speaker declined
to administer the oath under such circumstances (II, 875).
A proposition to administer the oath is a matter of high privilege (VI,
§ 201. Privilege of
14). It has been administered during a call of the roll
administration of the and during an electronic vote on a motion to agree to
oath. rules at the time of organization (I, 173; VI, 22; Jan.
4, 2005, p. 46) and during an electronic vote taken dur-
ing House deliberations interlocutory to an ongoing joint session to count
the electoral votes (Jan. 6, 2005, p. 242). It also has been administered
before the reading of the Journal (I, 172), in the absence of a quorum
(VI, 22), on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 22), before a pending motion to
amend the Journal (I, 171), and after the previous question has been or-
dered on a bill reported back to the House from the Committee of the
Whole (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28487) or pending engrossment and third reading
(June 19, 2008, p. l). A division being demanded on a resolution seating
several claimants, the oath may be administered to each as soon as his
case is decided (I, 623). If a Member-elect whose right to a seat has been
determined by the House is present to take the oath, the right to be sworn
is complete and cannot be deferred even by a motion to adjourn (I, 622),
but the Speaker has entertained the motion to adjourn after adoption of
a seating resolution but before the Member-elect was present in the Cham-
ber to take the oath (May 1, 1985, p. 10019).
The right of a Member-elect to take the oath is sometimes challenged,
§ 202. Challenge of the
usually at the time of organization of the House. The
right to take the oath. challenge may be made by a Member-elect who has not
yet taken the oath (I, 141). The Member challenging
does so on his responsibility as a Member or on the strength of documents
(I, 448) or on both (I, 443, 474). And where an objection was sustained
neither by affidavit nor on the responsibility of the Member objecting, the
House declined to entertain it (I, 455).
[86]
[ARTICLE VI] § 203–§ 204
It has been held, although not uniformly, that in cases in which the
right of a Member-elect to take the oath is challenged,
an objection to the the Speaker may direct the Member to stand aside tem-
taking of the oath. porarily (I, 143–146, 474; VI, 9, 174; VIII, 3386). The
Member so challenged is not thereby deprived of any
right (I, 155). Similarly, the seating of a Member-elect does not prejudice
a pending contest, brought under the Federal Contested Elections Act (2
U.S.C. 381–396), over final right to the seat (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 120; Jan.
4, 2007, p. 5). When several are challenged and stand aside the question
is first taken on the Member-elect first required to stand aside (I, 147,
148). In 1861 it was held that the House might direct contested names
to be passed over until the other Members-elect had been sworn in (I,
154). Motions and debate are in order on the questions involved in a chal-
lenge, and in a few cases other business has intervened by unanimous
consent (I, 149, 150). By unanimous consent the consideration of a chal-
lenge is sometimes deferred until after the completion of the organization
(I, 474), and by unanimous consent also the House has sometimes pro-
ceeded to legislative business pending consideration of the right of a Mem-
ber to be sworn (I, 151, 152).
Although the House has emphasized the impropriety of swearing a Mem-
§ 204. Relation of
ber without credentials (I, 162–168), yet it has been
credentials to the done in cases in which the credentials are delayed or
right to take the oath. lost and there is no doubt of the election (I, 85, 176–
178; VI, 12, 13), or in which the governor of a State
has declined to give credentials to a person whose election was undoubted
and uncontested (I, 553). A certificate of election in due form having been
filed, the Clerk placed the name of the Member-elect on the roll, although
he was subsequently advised that a State Supreme Court had issued a
writ restraining the Secretary of State from issuing such certificate (Jan.
3, 1949, p. 8). If the prima facie right is contested the Speaker declines
to administer the oath (I, 550), but the House admits on a prima facie
showing, and without regard to final right, a Member-elect from a recog-
nized constituency whose credentials are in due form and whose qualifica-
tions are unquestioned (I, 528–534). If the status of the constituency is
in doubt, the House usually defers the oath (I, 361, 386, 448, 461). In
the 99th Congress, the House declined to give prima facie effect to a certifi-
cate of election, the results of the election being in doubt, and referred
the issue of initial as well as final right to the Committee on House Admin-
istration (H. Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, pp. 380–87). After a recount of the votes
was conducted by that committee, the House on its recommendation de-
clared the candidate without the certificate entitled to the seat (H. Res.
146, May 1, 1985, p. 9998). The House also may defer the oath when a
question of qualifications arises (I, 474), but it may investigate qualifica-
tions after the oath is taken (I, 156–159, 420, 462, 481), and after investiga-
tion unseat the Member by majority vote (I, 428).
[87]
§ 205–§ 207 [ARTICLE VII]
Questions of sanity (I, 441) and loyalty (I, 448) seem to pertain to com-
§ 205. Sanity, loyalty,
petency to take the oath as a question of qualifications,
and incapacity as although there has been not a little debate on this sub-
related to the oath. ject (I, 479). In one case a Member-elect who had not
taken the oath was excluded from the House because
of disloyalty, in which the resolution of exclusion and the committee report
thereon concluded that he was ineligible to take a seat as a Representative
under the express provisions of section 3 of the 14th amendment (VI, 56–
59). This action by the House was cited in the Supreme Court decision
of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 545 fn. 83 (1969), which denied
the power of the House to exclude Members-elect by a majority vote for
other than failure to meet the express qualifications stated in the Constitu-
tion. In Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), the Supreme Court held that
the exclusion by a State legislature of a member-elect of that body was
unconstitutional, where the legislature had asserted the power to judge
the sincerity with which the Member-elect could take the oath to support
the Constitution of the United States. In the 97th Congress, the House
declared vacant by majority vote the seat of a Member-elect unable to
take the oath because of illness, in which the medical prognosis showed
no likelihood of improvement to permit the Member-elect to take the oath
or assume the duties of a Representative (H. Res. 80, Feb. 24, 1981, pp.
2916–18).
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: McCulloch v. Mary-
land, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819); Ex parte Garland,
Court. 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S.
333 (1890); Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S.
1 (1890).
ARTICLE VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine
§ 207. Ratification of States, shall be sufficient for the
the Constitution.
Establishment of this Constitution
between the States so ratifying the Same.
DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent
of the States present the Seventeenth Day of
September in the Year of our Lord one thou-
sand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of
the Independence of the United States of
[88]
[ARTICLE VII] § 207
America the Twelfth IN WITNESS whereof We

have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Go WASHINGTON—Presidt.
and Deputy from Virginia.
[Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.]
New Hampshire.
JOHN LANGDON, NICHOLAS GILMAN.
Massachusetts.
NATHANIEL GORHAM, RUFUS KING.
Connecticut.
WM. SAML. JOHNSON, ROGER SHERMAN.
New York.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
New Jersey.
WIL: LIVINGSTON, WM. PATERSON,

DAVID BREARLEY, JONA: DAYTON.
Pennsylvania.
B FRANKLIN, THOMAS MIFFLIN,

ROBT. MORRIS, GEO. CLYMER,
THOS. FITZSIMONS, JARED INGERSOLL,
JAMES WILSON, GOUV MORRIS.
Delaware.
GEO. READ, GUNNING BEDFORD JUN,

JOHN DICKINSON, RICHARD BASSETT.
JACO BROOM,
Maryland.
JAMES MCHENRY, DAN OF ST THOS. JENIFER.

DANl CARROLL,
Virginia.
JOHN BLAIR, JAMES MADISON Jr.
[89]
§ 207 [ARTICLE VII]
North Carolina.
WM. BLOUNT, RICH’D. DOBBS SPAIGHT.

HU WILLIAMSON,
South Carolina.
J. RUTLEDGE, CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY,

CHARLES PINCKNEY, PIERCE BUTLER.
Georgia.
WILLIAM FEW, ABR BALDWIN.

Attest: WILLIAM JACKSON, Secretary.
[90]
[AMENDMENTS I–II] § 208–§ 209
ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATI-
FIED BY THE SEVERAL STATES PURSUANT TO
THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITU-
TION1
AMENDMENT I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an es-
tablishment of religion, or prohib-
§ 208. Freedom of
religion, of speech,
iting the free exercise thereof; or
and of peaceable
assembly.
abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT II.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of
§ 209. The right to
bear arms.
the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
1 The first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States
were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the First Con-
gress on September 25, 1789 (this date and the date succeeding amend-
ments were proposed is the date of final congressional action—signature
by the presiding officer of the Senate—as is shown in the Senate Jour-
nals). They were ratified by the following States, on the dates shown,
and the notifications by the governors thereof of ratification were com-
municated by the President to Congress: New Jersey, November 20,
1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789;
South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790;
Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 27, 1790; Pennsyl-
vania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont, November
3, 1791; and Virginia, December 15, 1791. Ratification was completed on
December 15, 1791. The amendments were subsequently ratified by Mas-
sachusetts, March 2, 1939; Georgia, March 18, 1939; Connecticut, April
19, 1939.
[91]
§ 210–§ 212 [AMENDMENTS III–V]
AMENDMENT III.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered
§ 210. Quartering of in any house, without the consent
soldiers in houses.
of the Owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
AMENDMENT IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their
§ 211. Security from persons, houses, papers, and effects,
unreasonable searches
and seizures. against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V.
No person shall be held to answer for a cap-
ital, or otherwise infamous crime,
§ 212. Security as to
accusations, trials,
and property.unless on a presentment or indict-
ment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any Criminal Case to be a witness against
himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or prop-
erty, without due process of law; nor shall pri-
vate property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
[92]
[AMENDMENTS VI–VIII] § 213–§ 215
AMENDMENT VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and pub-
§ 213. Right to trial by
jury and to confront
lic trial, by an impartial jury of the
witnesses and secure
testimony.
State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the wit-
nesses against him; to have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
AMENDMENT VII.
In suits at common law, where the value in
Controversy shall exceed twenty
§ 214. Jury trial in
suits at common law.
dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury
shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of
the common law.
AMENDMENT VIII.
§ 215. Excessive bail or Excessive bail shall not be re-
fines and cruel
punishments
quired, nor excessive fines imposed,
prohibited. nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
[93]
§ 216–§ 218 [AMENDMENTS IX–XI]
AMENDMENT IX.
The enumeration in the Constitu-
§ 216. Rights reserved
tion, of certain rights, shall not be

to the people.
construed to deny or disparage others retained

by the people.
AMENDMENT X.
The powers not delegated to the United States
§ 217. Powers reserved by the Constitution, nor prohibited
to the States.
by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XI.2
The Judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any
§ 218. Extent of the
judicial power.
suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Sub-
jects of any Foreign State.
2 The 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Third Congress

on March 11, 1794; and was declared in a message from the President
to Congress dated the 8th of January, 1798, to have been ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The dates of ratification were:
New York, March 27, 1794; Rhode Island, March 31, 1794; Connecticut,
May 8, 1794; New Hampshire, June 16, 1794; Massachusetts, June 26,
1794; Vermont, October 28, 1794; Virginia, November 18, 1794; Georgia,
November 29, 1794; Kentucky, December 7, 1794; Maryland, December
26, 1794; Delaware, January 23, 1795; and North Carolina, February 7,
1795. Ratification was completed on February 7, 1795. The amendment
was subsequently ratified by South Carolina, December 4, 1797. New
Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the amendment.
[94]
[AMENDMENT XII] § 219
AMENDMENT XII.3
The Electors shall meet in their respective
§ 219. Meeting of the states, and vote by ballot for Presi-
electors and
transmission and dent and Vice-President, one of
count of their votes.
whom, at least, shall not be an in-
habitant of the same state with themselves; they
shall name in their ballots the person voted for
as President, and in distinct ballots the person
voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make
distinct lists of all persons voted for as Presi-
dent, and of all persons voted for as Vice-Presi-
dent, and the number of votes for each, which
lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit
sealed to the seat of the government of the
United States, directed to the President of the
Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in
presence of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, open all the certificates and the votes shall
then be counted;— * * *
3 See article II, section 1 of the Constitution. The 12th amendment to
the Constitution was proposed to the legislatures of the several States

by the Eighth Congress on December 12, 1803, in lieu of the original
third paragraph of the first section of the second article, and was de-
clared in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of Sep-
tember, 1804, to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the States. The dates of ratification were: North Carolina, December
21, 1803; Maryland, December 24, 1803; Kentucky, December 27, 1803;
Ohio, December 30, 1803; Virginia, December 31, 1803; Pennsylvania,
January 5, 1804; Vermont, January 30, 1804; New York, February 10,
1804; New Jersey, February 22, 1804; Rhode Island, March 12, 1804;
South Carolina, May 15, 1804; Georgia, May 19, 1804; New Hampshire,
June 15, 1804. Ratification was completed on June 15, 1804. The amend-
ment was subsequently ratified by Tennessee, July 27, 1804. The amend-
ment was rejected by Delaware, January 18, 1804; Massachusetts, Feb-
ruary 3, 1804; and by Connecticut at its session begun May 10, 1804.
[95]
§ 220 [AMENDMENT XII]
The electoral count occurs in a joint session of the two Houses in the
§ 220. The electoral
Hall of the House (III, 1819) at 1 p.m. on the sixth
count. day of January succeeding every meeting of electors (3
U.S.C. 15). The Vice President, as President of the Sen-
ate (or the President pro tempore in the Vice President’s absence), presides
over the joint session (3 U.S.C. 15). The date of the count has been changed
by law as follows: (1) the 1957 count was changed to Monday, January
7 (P.L. 84–436); (2) the 1985 count was changed to Monday, January 7
(P.L. 98–456); (3) the 1989 count was changed to Wednesday, January
4 (P.L. 100–646); (4) the 1997 count was changed to Thursday, January
9 (P.L. 104–296); (5) the 2009 count was changed to Thursday, January
8 (P.L. 110–430).
Sections 15–18 of title 3, United States Code, prescribe in detail the
procedure for the count. Nevertheless, the two Houses traditionally adopt
a concurrent resolution providing for the meeting in joint session to count
the vote, for the appointment of tellers, and for the declaration of the state
of the vote (III, 1961; Deschler, ch. 10, § 2.1). Under the law governing
the proceedings, the two Houses divide to consider an objection to the
counting of any electoral vote or ‘‘other question arising in the matter’’
(3 U.S.C. 15–18; Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145–47; Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101; Jan. 6,
2005, pp. 198, 199), but only when in writing and signed by both a Member
and a Senator (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 198). Examples of
an ‘‘other question arising in the matter’’ include: (1) an objection for lack
of a quorum (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101); (2) a motion that either House withdraw
from the joint session (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101); and (3) an appeal from a
ruling by the presiding officer (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101). Such questions are
not debatable in the joint session (3 U.S.C. 18; Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101). When
the two Houses have divided, a motion in the House to lay the objection
on the table is not in order (Jan. 6, 1969; pp. 169–72). A Vice President-
elect, as Speaker of the House or as a sitting Vice President, has partici-
pated in the ceremonies (e.g., VI, 446; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 197). See Deschler,
ch. 10 for further discussion. When addressing a controversy over the elec-
tion of President and Vice President in the State of Florida, the Supreme
Court indicated its view of a section of the statute (3 U.S.C. 5) addressing
a determination of controversy as to the appointment of electors. Bush
v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. (531 U.S. 70 (2000)). Ultimately,
the Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court violated the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment by ordering certain coun-
ties to conduct manual recounts of the votes for President and Vice Presi-
dent without establishing standards for those recounts. Bush v. Gore (531
U.S. 98 (2000)).
[96]
[AMENDMENT XII] § 221
* * * The person having the greatest number

§ 221. Elections of of votes for President, shall be the
President and Vice
President by the President, if such number be a ma-
House and Senate in
certain cases.
jority of the whole number of Elec-
tors appointed; and if no person
have such majority, then from the persons hav-
ing the highest numbers not exceeding three on
the list of those voted for as President, the
House of Representatives shall choose imme-
diately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing
the President, the votes shall be taken by states,
the representation from each State having one
vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of
a member or members from two-thirds of the
states, and a majority of all the states shall be
necessary to a choice. And if the House of Rep-
resentatives shall not choose a President when-
ever the right of choice shall devolve upon them,
before the fourth day of March next following,
then the Vice-President shall act as President,
as in the case of the death or other constitu-
tional disability of the President. The person
having the greatest number of votes as Vice-
President, shall be the Vice-President, if such
number be a majority of the whole number of
Electors appointed, and if no person have a ma-
jority, then from the two highest numbers on the
list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President;
a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-
thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a
majority of the whole number shall be necessary
to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineli-
[97]
§ 222–§ 224 [AMENDMENT XIII]
gible to the Office of President shall be eligible

to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The 20th amendment to the Constitution has clarified some of the provi-
§ 222. History of
sions of the 12th amendment. In 1801 (III, 1983), the
original provision for House of Representatives chose a President under arti-
failure of electoral cle II, section 1, clause 3 (see § 152a, supra), the con-
college to choose. stitutional provision superseded by the 12th amend-
ment.
In 1825 the House elected a President under the 12th amendment (III,
§ 223. Occasions of
1985); and in 1837 the Senate elected a Vice President
election by House and (III, 1941).
Senate after 1803.
AMENDMENT XIII.4
SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary
§ 224. Prohibition of servitude, except as a punishment
slavery and
involuntary servitude. for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall

proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the 38th Congress,

on February 1, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Sec-
retary of State, dated the December 18, 1865, to have been ratified by
the legislatures of 27 of the 36 States. The dates of ratification were: Illi-
nois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2, 1865; Michigan, Feb-
ruary 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York, February 3, 1865;
Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia, February 3, 1865; Mis-
souri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865; Kansas, February 7,
1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia, February 9, 1865; Ohio,
February 16, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865; Nevada, February 16,
1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota, February 23, 1865; Wis-
consin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865; Tennessee, April 7,
1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hamp-
shire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865; Alabama, De-
cember 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; and Georgia, Decem-
ber 6, 1865. Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The
amendment was subsequently ratified by Oregon, December 8, 1865;
California, December 19, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida
again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution);
Iowa, January 15, 1866; New Jersey, January 23, 1866 (after having re-
jected the amendment on March 16, 1865); Texas, February 18, 1870;
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment on
[98]
[AMENDMENT XIV] § 225
exist within the United States, or any place sub-

ject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to en-
force this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV.5
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to
§ 225. Citizenship:
security and equal
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
protection of citizens.
of the United States and of the

February 8, 1865); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after hearing rejected the
amendment on February 24, 1865). The amendment was rejected by Mis-
sissippi, December 4, 1865, but subsequently ratified on March 16, 1995.
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the 39th Congress,

on June 15, 1866. On July 20, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proc-
lamation that the 14th amendment was a part of the Constitution if
withdrawals of ratification were ineffective. On July 21, 1868, Congress
adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a concurrent resolu-
tion declaring that ‘‘the legislatures of the States of Connecticut, Ten-
nessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Illinois, West
Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North
Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being three-fourths
and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified the fourteenth
article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, duly pro-
posed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress: There-
fore Resolved, That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part
of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promul-
gated as such by the Secretary of State.’’ The Secretary of State accord-
ingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28, 1868, declaring that the pro-
posed 14th amendment had been ratified, in the manner hereafter men-
tioned, by the legislatures of 28 States. The dates of ratification were:
Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee,
July 18, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently, on Feb-
ruary 20, 1868, the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March
24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor’s veto,
and on April 23, 2003, revoked the resolution of rescission); Oregon, Sep-
tember 19, 1866 (subsequently rescinded its ratification on October 16,
1868, and ratified on April 25, 1973); New York, January 10, 1867; Ohio,
Continued
[99]
§ 226 [AMENDMENT XIV]
State wherein they reside. No State shall make

or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2. Representatives shall be appor-
§ 226. Apportionment tioned among the several States ac-
of representation.
cording to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each
State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President and Vice President of the
United States, Representatives in Congress, the
Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the
members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to
January 11, 1867 (subsequently rescinded its ratification on January 13,
1868, and ratified on March 12, 2003); Illinois, January 15, 1867; West
Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, Jan-
uary 16, 1867; Kansas, January 17, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Ne-
vada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January
25, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 6, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7,
1867; Wisconsin, February 13, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Ne-
braska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868;
Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected
the amendment December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after hav-
ing rejected the amendment February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9,
1868 (after having rejected the amendment December 20, 1866). Ratifica-
tion was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was subsequently
ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having
rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having
rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas,
February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Dela-
ware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867);
Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867);
California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having rejected
it on January 10, 1867).
[100]
[AMENDMENT XIV] § 227
any of the male inhabitants of such State, being

twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced
in the proportion which the number of such
male citizens shall bear to the whole number of
male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
State.
There has been a readjustment of House representation each 10 years
§ 227. Law governing
except during the period 1911 to 1929 (VI, 41, footnote).
the establishment of From March 4, 1913, permanent House membership
districts. has remained fixed at 435 (VI, 40, 41; 37 Stat. 13). Upon
admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood, total
membership was temporarily increased to 437 until the next reapportion-
ment (72 Stat. 339, 345; 73 Stat. 8). Congress has by law provided for
automatic apportionment of the 435 Representatives among the States ac-
cording to each census including and after that of 1950 (2 U.S.C. 2a). The
Apportionment Act formerly provided that the districts in a State were
to be composed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly
as practicable an equal number of inhabitants (I, 303; VI, 44); but subse-
quent apportionment Acts, those of 1929 (46 Stat. 26) and 1941 (55 Stat.
761), omitted such provisions. See Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932).
Congress has by law provided that for the 91st and subsequent Con-
gresses each State entitled to more than one Representative shall establish
a number of districts equal to the number of such Representatives, and
that Representatives shall be elected only from the single-Member districts
so established. (Hawaii and New Mexico were excepted from the operation
of this statute for the elections to the 91st Congress by Public Law 90–
196; see 2 U.S.C. 2c). After any apportionment, until a State is redistricted
in a manner provided by its own law and in compliance with the congres-
sional mandate, the question of whether its Representatives shall be elect-
ed by districts, at large, or by a combination of both, is determined by
the Apportionment Act of 1941 (2 U.S.C. 2a).
Under the Apportionment Act, a statistical model known as the ‘‘method
of equal proportions’’ is used to determine the number of Representatives
to which each State is entitled. Although other methods for apportioning
House seats may be permitted, the equal proportions method chosen by
Congress has been upheld under the Constitution and was plainly intended
to reach as close as practicable the goal of ‘‘one person, one vote.’’ Massachu-
setts v. Mosbacher, 785 F. Supp. 230 (D. Mass. 1992), rev’d on other
grounds Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). The courts also
[101]
§ 228–§ 230 [AMENDMENT XIV]
have recently upheld under Federal law and the Constitution a counting
methodology used by the Census Bureau in a decennial census. This meth-
od, known as ‘‘imputation,’’ was held to be different than ‘‘sampling,’’ a
method prohibited under section 195 of title 13, United States Code. Utah
v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002). The method of apportioning the seats in
the House is vested exclusively in Congress, and neither States nor courts
may direct greater or lesser representation than that allocated by statute
(Deschler, ch 8 § 1). See Deschler, ch. 8 for apportionment and districting.
The House has always seated Members elected at large in the States,
although the law required election by districts (I, 310,
elections. 519). Questions have arisen from time to time when
a vacancy has occurred soon after a change in districts,
with the resulting question whether the vacancy should be filled by election
in the old or new district (I, 311, 312, 327). The House has declined to
interfere with the act of a State in changing the boundaries of a district
after the apportionment has been made (I, 313).
The Supreme Court has ruled that congressional districts must be as
§ 229. Requirement
equally populated as practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders,
that districts be 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450
equally populated. (1967). The Court has made clear that variances in pop-
ulation among congressional districts within a State
may be considered de minimis only if they cannot practicably be avoided.
If such variances, no matter how mathematically miniscule, could have
been reduced or eliminated by a good faith effort, then they may be justified
only on the basis of a consistent, rational State policy. Karcher v. Daggett,
462 U.S. 725 (1983). The Court also has made evident that it will take
judicial review of a claim that apportionment schemes lack consistent, ra-
tional bases. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (holding political
gerrymandering complaint justiciable under equal protection clause).
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or

§ 230. Loyalty as a Representative in Congress, or elec-
qualification of
Senators and tor of President and Vice President,
Representatives.
or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the
United States, or as a member of any State leg-
islature, or as an executive or judicial officer of
any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrec-
tion or rebellion against the same, or given aid
[102]
[AMENDMENT XIV] § 231–§ 233
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress

may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, re-
move such disability.
Congress has by law removed generally the disabilities arising from the
§ 231. Removal of
Civil War (30 Stat. 432). Soon after the war various
disabilities and questions arose under this section (I, 386, 393, 455,
questions as to seating456). For disloyalty to the United States, for giving aid
a Member-elect. and comfort to a public enemy, for publication of expres-
sions hostile to the Government a Member-elect was
denied a seat in the House (VI, 56, 58). As to the meaning of the words
‘‘aid or comfort’’ as used in the 14th amendment (VI, 57).
SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of

the United States, authorized by
§ 232. Validity of the
national debt, etc.
law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not
be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obli-
gation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebel-
lion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all
such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
illegal and void.
SECTION 5. The Congress shall
§ 233. Enforcement of
have power to enforce, by appro-

the 14th amendment.
priate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress may legislate under this section to protect voting rights by
preempting discriminatory State qualifications for electors (Katzenbach v.
Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966)), and may lower the voting age in Federal
(but not State) elections (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)).
[103]
§ 234 [AMENDMENT XV]
AMENDMENT XV.6
SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United
§ 234. Suffrage not to States to vote shall not be denied or
be abridged for race,
color, etc. abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the 40th Congress

on February 26, 1869, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Sec-
retary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified by the legis-
latures of 29 of the 37 States. The dates of these ratifications were: Ne-
vada, March 1, 1869; West Virginia, March 3, 1869; North Carolina,
March 5, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Louisiana, March 5, 1869; Michi-
gan, March 8, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March 11, 1869;
Massachusetts, March 12, 1869; Arkansas, March 15, 1869; South Caro-
lina, March 15, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1869; New York, April 14,
1869 (subsequently withdrew its consent to the ratification on January
5, 1870 but rescinded this action on March 30, 1970); Indiana, May 14,
1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 14, 1869; New Hamp-
shire, July 1, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Vermont, October 20, 1869;
Alabama, November 16, 1869; Missouri, January 7, 1870 (Missouri had
ratified the first section of the 15th amendment on March 1, 1869, but
had failed to include in its ratification the second section of the amend-
ment); Minnesota, January 13, 1870; Mississippi, January 17, 1870;
Rhode Island, January 18, 1870; Kansas, January 19, 1870; Ohio, Janu-
ary 27, 1870 (after having rejected the amendment April 30, 1869); Geor-
gia, February 2, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870. Ratification was com-
pleted on February 3, 1870, unless the withdrawal of ratification by New
York was effective; in which event ratification was completed on Feb-
ruary 17, 1870, when ratified by Nebraska. The amendment was subse-
quently ratified by Texas, February 18, 1870; New Jersey, February 15,
1871 (after having rejected it on February 7, 1870); Delaware, February
12, 1901 (after having rejected it on March 18, 1869); Oregon, February
24, 1959; California, April 3, 1962 (after having rejected it on January
28, 1870); Maryland, May 7, 1973 (after having rejected it on February
4 and February 26, 1870); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having re-
jected it on March 11 and March 12, 1869); Tennessee, April 2, 1997,
(after having rejected it on November 16, 1869).
[104]
[AMENDMENT XVI] § 235
AMENDMENT XVI.7
The Congress shall have power to lay and col-
§ 235. Taxes on lect taxes on incomes, from what-
incomes.
ever source derived, without appor-
tionment among the several States, and without
regard to any census or enumeration.
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the 61st Congress

on July 16, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary
of State dated February 25, 1913, to have been ratified by the legisla-
tures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, Au-
gust 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19,
1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma,
March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20,
1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Mon-
tana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January
31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colo-
rado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, Feb-
ruary 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7,
1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it at the session
begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12,
1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June
28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware, February 3, 1913;
Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification
was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently
ratified by New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913
(after having rejected the amendment January 17, 1911); Massachusetts,
March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected the
amendment March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected by Rhode Is-
land, April 29, 1910; Utah, March 9, 1911; Connecticut, June 28, 1911;
and Florida, May 31, 1913. Pennsylvania and Virginia did not complete
action.
[105]
§ 236 [AMENDMENT XVII]
AMENDMENT XVII.8
The Senate of the United States shall be com-
posed of two Senators from each
§ 236. Election of
Senators by direct
vote. State, elected by the people thereof,
for six years; and each Senator
shall have one vote. The electors in each State
shall have the qualifications requisite for elec-
tors of the most numerous branch of the State
legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation
of any State in the Senate, the executive author-
ity of such State shall issue writs of election to
fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legisla-
ture of any State may empower the executive
thereof to make temporary appointments until
8 See article I, section 3 of the Constitution. The 17th amendment to

by the 62d Congress on May 15, 1912, and was declared, in a proclama-
tion by the Secretary of State dated May 31, 1913, to have been ratified
by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were:
Massachusetts, May 22, 1912; Arizona, June 3, 1912; Minnesota, June
10, 1912; New York, January 15, 1913; Kansas, January 17, 1913; Or-
egon, January 23, 1913; North Carolina, January 25, 1913; California,
January 28, 1913; Michigan, January 28, 1913; Iowa, January 30, 1913;
Montana, January 30, 1913; Idaho, January 31, 1913; West Virginia,
February 4, 1913; Colorado, February 5, 1913; Nevada, February 6, 1913;
Texas, February 7, 1913; Washington, February 7, 1913; Wyoming, Feb-
ruary 8, 1913; Arkansas, February 11, 1913; Maine, February 11, 1913;
Illinois, February 13, 1913; North Dakota, February 14, 1913; Wisconsin,
February 18, 1913; Indiana, February 19, 1913; New Hampshire, Feb-
ruary 19, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913; South Dakota, February 19,
1913; Oklahoma, February 24, 1913; Ohio, February 25, 1913; Missouri,
March 7, 1913; New Mexico, March 13, 1913; Nebraska, March 14, 1913;
New Jersey, March 17, 1913; Tennessee, April 1, 1913; Pennsylvania,
April 2, 1913; Connecticut, April 8, 1913. Ratification was completed on
April 8, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Louisiana,
June 11, 1914; Alabama, April 16, 2002. The amendment was rejected
by Utah, February 26, 1913; Delaware, March 18, 1913. Florida, Georgia,
Rhode Island, and South Carolina did not complete action.
[106]
[AMENDMENT XVIII] § 237–§ 239
the people fill the vacancies by election as the

legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as
to affect the election or term of any Senator cho-
sen before it becomes valid as part of the Con-
stitution.
Senator Rebecca L. Felton, appointed during the recess of the Senate
on October 3, 1922, to fill a vacancy, was the first
§ 237. Filling vacancies
in the Senate. woman to sit in the Senate (VI, 156). Senator Walter
F. George was elected to fill the vacancy on Novem-
ber 7, 1922. Mrs. Felton took the oath of office on November 21, 1922,
and Senator George took the oath November 22, 1922 (VI, 156). Discus-
sion as to the term of service of a Senator appointed by a State executive
to fill a vacancy (VI, 156).
The right of an elector to vote for a Senator is fundamentally derived
from the United States Constitution (United States v.
electors. Aczel 219 F.2d 917 (1915)) and may not be denied in
a discriminatory fashion (Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d
460 (1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946); Forssenius v. Harman, 235
F. Supp. 66 (1964), aff’d., 380 U.S. 529 (1965)).
AMENDMENT XVIII.9
SECTION 1. [After one year from the ratifica-
§ 239. Prohibition of tion of this article the manufacture,
intoxicating liquors.
sale, or transportation of intoxi-
9 See amendment XXI, repealing this amendment. The 18th amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legis-
latures of the several States by the 65th Congress on December 18, 1917,
and was declared in a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated Jan-
uary 29, 1919, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48
States. The dates of these ratifications were: Mississippi, January 8,
1918; Virginia, January 11, 1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North
Dakota, January 25, 1918; South Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland,
February 13, 1918; Montana, February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918;
Delaware, March 18, 1918; South Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachu-
setts, April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24, 1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Lou-
isiana, August 3, 1918; Florida, December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2,
1919; Ohio, January 7, 1919; Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, Janu-
ary 8, 1919; Maine, January 8, 1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919;
California, January 13, 1919; Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington,
Continued
[107]
§ 240 [AMENDMENT XIX]
cating liquors within, the importation thereof

into, or the exportation thereof from the United
States and all territories subject to the jurisdic-
tion thereof for beverage purposes is hereby pro-
hibited.
SECTION 2. The Congress and the several
States shall have concurrent power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation.
SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative
unless it shall have been ratified as an amend-
ment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
the several States, as provided in the Constitu-
tion, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Con-
gress.]
AMENDMENT XIX.10
The right of citizens of the United States to
§ 240. Women’svote shall not be denied or abridged
suffrage.
by the United States or by any
State on account of sex.
January 13, 1919; Arkansas, January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14,
1919; Alabama, January 15, 1919; Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa,
January 15, 1919; New Hampshire, January 15, 1919; Oregon, January
15, 1919; Nebraska, January 16, 1919; North Carolina, January 16,
1919; Utah, January 16, 1919; Missouri, January 16, 1919; Wyoming,
January 16, 1919. Ratification was completed on January 16, 1919. The
amendment was subsequently ratified by Minnesota, January 17, 1919;
Wisconsin, January 17, 1919; New Mexico, January 20, 1919; Nevada,
January 21, 1919; New York, January 29, 1919; Vermont, January 29,
1919; Pennsylvania, February 25, 1919; Connecticut, May 6, 1919; New
Jersey, March 9, 1922. Connecticut and Rhode Island rejected the
amendment.

on June 5, 1919, and was declared in a proclamation by the Secretary
of State dated August 26, 1920, to have been ratified by the legislatures
[108]
[AMENDMENT XX] § 241
Congress shall have power to enforce this arti-

cle by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XX.11
SECTION 1. The terms of the President and
Vice President shall end at noon on
§ 241. Commencement
of terms of Pres., Vice
the 20th day of January, and the
Pres., Senators, and
terms of Senators and Representa-

Representatives.
of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications were: Illinois, June

10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution of ratification June 17,
1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June 10, 1919; Kansas, June
16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16, 1919; Pennsylvania,
June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas, June 28, 1919;
Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas, July 28, 1919; Mon-
tana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919; Minnesota, September
8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah, October 2, 1919;
California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919; North Dakota,
December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919; Colorado, December
15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island, January 6, 1920; Or-
egon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920; Wyoming, January
27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey, February 9, 1920;
Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920; New Mexico, Feb-
ruary 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West Virginia, March 10,
1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August 28, 1920. Ratifica-
tion was completed on August 28, 1920. The amendment was subse-
quently ratified by Connecticut, September 14, 1920 (and that State re-
affirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921; Delaware,
March 6, 1923 (after having rejected the amendment on June 2, 1920);
Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected the amendment on Feb-
ruary 24, 1920; ratification certified February 25, 1958); Virginia, Feb-
ruary 21, 1952 (after having rejected the amendment February 12, 1920);
Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected the amendment Sep-
tember 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969
(after having rejected the amendment on January 28, 1920); Georgia,
February 20, 1970 (after having rejected the amendment on July 24,
1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1, 1920);
North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 29, 1920).
11 See article I, section 4 of the Constitution. The 20th amendment to

by the 72d Congress, on March 3, 1932, and was declared in a proclama-
Continued
[109]
§ 242 [AMENDMENT XX]
tives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the

years in which such terms would have ended if
this article had not been ratified; and the terms
of their successors shall then begin.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall assemble at
§ 242. Meeting of least once in every year, and such
Congress.
meeting shall begin at noon on the
3d day of January, unless they shall by law ap-
point a different day.
Before the ratification of the 20th amendment Congress met on the first
Monday in December as provided in article I, section 4, of the Constitution.
For discussion of the term of Congress before and pursuant to the 20th
amendment, see § 6, supra (accompanying art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1), and Deschler,
ch. 1.
tion by the Secretary of State dated February 6, 1933, to have been rati-
fied by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifica-
tions were: Virginia, March 4, 1932; New York, March 11, 1932; Mis-
sissippi, March 16, 1932; Arkansas, March 17, 1932; Kentucky, March
17, 1932; New Jersey, March 21, 1932; South Carolina, March 25, 1932;
Michigan, March 31, 1932; Maine, April 1, 1932; Rhode Island, April 14,
1932; Illinois, April 21, 1932; Louisiana, June 22, 1932; West Virginia,
July 30, 1932; Pennsylvania, August 11, 1932; Indiana, August 15, 1932;
Texas, September 7, 1932; Alabama, September 13, 1932; California,
January 4, 1933; North Carolina, January 5, 1933; North Dakota, Janu-
ary 9, 1933; Minnesota, January 12, 1933; Montana, January 13, 1933;
Nebraska, January 13, 1933; Oklahoma, January 13, 1933; Arizona, Jan-
uary 13, 1933; Kansas, January 16, 1933; Oregon, January 16, 1933; Wy-
oming, January 19, 1933; Delaware, January 19, 1933; Washington, Jan-
uary 19, 1933; South Dakota, January 20, 1933; Tennessee, January 20,
1933; Iowa, January 20, 1933; Idaho, January 21, 1933; New Mexico,
January 21, 1933; Ohio, January 23, 1933; Utah, January 23, 1933; Mis-
souri, January 23, 1933; Georgia, January 23, 1933. Ratification was
completed on January 23, 1933. The amendment was subsequently rati-
fied by Massachusetts, January 24, 1933; Wisconsin, January 24, 1933;
Colorado, January 24, 1933; Nevada, January 26, 1933; Connecticut,
January 27, 1933; New Hampshire, January 31, 1933; Vermont, Feb-
ruary 2, 1933; Maryland, March 24, 1933; Florida, April 26, 1933.
The ratification of this amendment to the Constitution shortened the
first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Vice President John N.
Garner, and the terms of all Senators and Representatives of the 73d
Congress.
[110]
[AMENDMENT XX] § 243–§ 244
Pursuant to section 2 of the 20th amendment, a regular session of a

Congress must begin at noon on January 3 of every year unless Congress
sets a different date by law, and if the House is in session at that time
the Speaker declares the House adjourned sine die without a motion from
the floor, in order that the next regular session of that Congress, or the
first session of the next Congress (as the case may be) may assemble at
noon on that day (Jan. 3, 1980, pp. 37773, 37774; Jan. 3, 1996, pp. 35,
36). The House has adjourned the second session of a Congress without
motion at its expiration and convened the first session of the new Congress
on a different date as prescribed by law (Jan. 3, 2009, p. l).
Since ratification, the following days for assembling have been estab-
§ 243. Laws appointing
lished: Public Law 74–120, Jan. 5, 1937; Public Law
different day for 77–395, Jan. 5, 1942; Public Law 77–819, Jan. 6, 1943;
convening. Public Law 78–210, Jan. 10, 1944; Public Law 79–289,
Jan. 14, 1946; Public Law 80–358, Jan. 6, 1948; Public
Law 82–244, Jan. 8, 1952; Public Law 83–199, Jan. 6, 1954; Public Law
83–700, Jan. 5, 1955; Public Law 85–290, Jan. 7, 1958; Public Law 85–
819, Jan. 7, 1959; Public Law 86–305, Jan. 6, 1960; Public Law 87–348,
Jan. 10, 1962; Public Law 87–864, Jan. 9, 1963; Public Law 88–247, Jan.
7, 1964; Public Law 88–649, Jan. 4, 1965; Public Law 89–340, Jan. 10,
1966; Public Law 89–704, Jan. 10, 1967; Public Law 90–230, Jan. 15, 1968;
Public Law 91–182, Jan. 19, 1970; Public Law 91–643, Jan. 21, 1971; Public
93–553, Jan. 14, 1975; Public Law 94–186, Jan. 19, 1976; Public Law 94–
494, Jan. 4, 1977; Public Law 95–594, Jan. 15, 1979; Public Law 96–566,
Jan. 5, 1981; Public Law 97–133, Jan. 25, 1982; Public Law 98–179, Jan.
23, 1984; Public Law 99–379, Jan. 21, 1986; Public Law 99–613, Jan. 6,
1987; Public Law 100–229, Jan. 25, 1988; Public Law 101–228, Jan. 23,
1990; Public Law 102–475, Jan. 5, 1993; Public Law 103–395, Jan. 4, 1995;
Public Law 104–296, Jan. 7, 1997; Public Law 105–140, Jan. 27, 1998;
Public Law 108–433, Jan. 4, 2005; Public Law 109–447, Jan. 4, 2007; Public
111–289, Jan. 5, 2011. Such laws for the convening of a second session
of a Congress may provide for possible earlier assembly by joint-leadership
recall (see, e.g., Public Law 107–98, Jan. 23, 2002).
SECTION 3. If, at the time fixed for the begin-

ning of the term of the President,
§ 244. Death or
disqualification of
the President elect shall have died,
President-elect.
the Vice President elect shall be-

come President. If a President shall not have
been chosen before the time fixed for the begin-
[111]
§ 245–§ 246 [AMENDMENT XX]
ning of his term, or if the President elect shall

have failed to qualify, then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by
law provide for the case wherein neither a Presi-
dent elect nor a Vice President elect shall have
qualified, declaring who shall then act as Presi-
dent, or the manner in which one who is to act
shall be selected, and such person shall act ac-
cordingly until a President or Vice President
shall have qualified.
Congress provided by law in 1947 for the performance of the duties of
§ 245. Statutory
the President in case of removal, death, resignation or
succession and the inability, both of the President and Vice President (3
25th amendment. U.S.C. 19). Earlier succession statutes covering the pe-
riods 1792–1886 and 1887–1948 can be found in 18
Stat. 21, and 24 Stat. 1, respectively. Also see the 25th amendment to
the Constitution, relating to vacancies in the Office of Vice President and
Presidential inability.
Before the 20th amendment there was no provision in the Constitution
for a case wherein the President-elect was disqualified or had died.
SECTION 4. The Congress may by law provide
for the case of the death of any of
§ 246. Congress to
provide for case
the persons from whom the House
wherein death occurs
of Representatives may choose a

among those from
whom House chooses
a President.President whenever the right of
choice shall have devolved upon
them, and for the case of the death of any of the
persons from whom the Senate may choose a
Vice President whenever the right of choice shall
have devolved upon them.
The above section changes the 12th amendment insofar as it gives Con-
gress the power to provide by law the manner in which the House should
proceed in the event no candidate had a majority and one of the three
highest on the list of those voted for as President had died.
[112]
[AMENDMENT XXI] § 247–§ 248
SECTION 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect

on the 15th day of October following the ratifica-
tion of this article.
three-fourths of the several States within seven
years from the date of its submission.
AMENDMENT XXI.12
SECTION 1. The eighteenth article of amend-
§ 247. Repeal of ment to the Constitution of the
prohibition.
United States is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. The transportation or importation
§ 248. Transportation into any State, Territory, or posses-
into States prohibited.
sion of the United States for deliv-
12 The 21st amendment to the Constitution of the United States was
proposed to conventions of the several States by the 72d Congress on

February 20, 1933, and was declared in a proclamation by the Acting
Secretary of State dated December 5, 1933, to have been ratified by con-
ventions in 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications were:
Michigan, April 10, 1933; Wisconsin, April 25, 1933; Rhode Island, May
8, 1933; Wyoming, May 25, 1933; New Jersey, June 1, 1933; Delaware,
June 24, 1933; Massachusetts, June 26, 1933; Indiana, June 26, 1933;
New York, June 27, 1933; Illinois, July 10, 1933; Iowa, July 10, 1933;
Connecticut, July 11, 1933; New Hampshire, July 11, 1933; California,
July 24, 1933; West Virginia, July 25, 1933; Arkansas, August 1, 1933;
Oregon, August 7, 1933; Alabama, August 8, 1933; Tennessee, August
11, 1933; Missouri, August 29, 1933; Arizona, September 5, 1933; Ne-
vada, September 5, 1933; Vermont, September 23, 1933; Colorado, Sep-
tember 26, 1933; Washington, October 3, 1933; Minnesota, October 10,
1933; Idaho, October 17, 1933; Maryland, October 18, 1933; Virginia, Oc-
tober 25, 1933; New Mexico, November 2, 1933; Florida, November 14,
1933; Texas, November 24, 1933; Kentucky, November 27, 1933; Ohio,
December 5, 1933; Pennsylvania, December 5, 1933; Utah, December 5,
1933. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Maine on December
6, 1933; Montana, August 6, 1934. The convention held in the State of
South Carolina on December 4, 1933, rejected the 21st amendment.
[113]
§ 249 [AMENDMENT XXII]
ery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in vio-

lation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
ment to the Constitution by conventions in the
several States, as provided in the Constitution,
within seven years from the date of the submis-
sion hereof to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXII.13
SECTION 1. No person shall be elected to the
office of the President more than
§ 249. No person shall
be elected President
twice, and no person who has held
more than twice.
the office of President, or acted as

President, for more than two years of a term to
13 The 22d amendment to the Constitution of the United States was

on March 24, 1947, and was declared by the Administrator of General
Services, in a proclamation dated March 1, 1951, to have been ratified
by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications
were: Maine, March 31, 1947; Michigan, March 31, 1947; Iowa, April 1,
1947; Kansas, April 1, 1947; New Hampshire, April 1, 1947; Delaware,
April 2, 1947; Illinois, April 3, 1947; Oregon, April 3, 1947; Colorado,
April 12, 1947; California, April 15, 1947; New Jersey, April, 15, 1947;
Vermont, April 15, 1947; Ohio, April 16, 1947; Wisconsin, April 16, 1947;
Pennsylvania, April 29, 1947; Connecticut, May 21, 1947; Missouri, May
22, 1947; Nebraska, May 23, 1947; Virginia, January 28, 1948; Mis-
sissippi, February 12, 1948; New York, March 9, 1948; South Dakota,
January 21, 1949; North Dakota, February 25, 1949; Louisiana, May 17,
1950; Montana, January 25, 1951; Indiana, January 29, 1951; Idaho,
January 30, 1951; New Mexico, February 12, 1951; Wyoming, February
12, 1951; Arkansas, February 15, 1951; Georgia, February 17, 1951; Ten-
nessee, February 20, 1951; Texas, February 22, 1951; Nevada, February
26, 1951; Utah, February 26, 1951; Minnesota, February 27, 1951. Ratifi-
cation was completed February 27, 1951. The amendment was subse-
quently ratified by North Carolina, February 28, 1951; South Carolina,
March 13, 1951; Maryland, March 14, 1951; Florida, April 16, 1951; Ala-
bama, May 4, 1951. Massachusetts and Oklahoma rejected the amend-
ment.
[114]
[AMENDMENT XXIII] § 250
which some other person was elected President

shall be elected to the office of the President
more than once. But this Article shall not apply
to any person holding the office of President
when this Article was proposed by the Congress,
and shall not prevent any person who may be
holding the office of President, or acting as
President, during the term within which this Ar-
ticle becomes operative from holding the office of
President or acting as President during the re-
mainder of such term.
three-fourths of the several States within seven
years from the date of its submission to the
States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXIII.14
SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat
§ 250. Representation of Government of the United States
in the Electoral
College to the District shall appoint in such manner as the
of Columbia.
Congress may direct:
14 The 23d amendment to the Constitution of the United States was

on June 17, 1960, and was declared by the Administrator of General
Services, in a proclamation dated April 3, 1961, to have been ratified by
the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of these ratifications
were: Hawaii, June 23, 1960; Massachusetts, August 22, 1960; New Jer-
sey, December 19, 1960; New York, January 17, 1961; California, Janu-
ary 19, 1961; Oregon, January 27, 1961; Maryland, January 30, 1961;
Idaho, January 31, 1961; Maine, January 31, 1961; Minnesota, January
31, 1961; New Mexico, February 1, 1961; Nevada, February 2, 1961;
Montana, February 26, 1961; Colorado, February 8, 1961; Washington,
February 9, 1961; West Virginia, February 9, 1961; Alaska, February 10,
Continued
[115]
§ 251 [AMENDMENT XXIV]
A number of electors of President and Vice

President equal to the whole number of Senators
and Representatives in Congress to which the
District would be entitled if it were a State, but
in no event more than the least populous State;
they shall be in addition to those appointed by
the States, but they shall be considered, for the
purposes of the election of President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State;
and they shall meet in the District and perform
such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
AMENDMENT XXIV.15
§ 251. Right to vote not States to vote in any primary or
denied for failure to
pay poll tax. other election for President or Vice
President, for electors for President
1961; Wyoming, February 13, 1961; South Dakota, February 14, 1961;
Delaware, February 20, 1961; Utah, February 21, 1961; Wisconsin, Feb-
ruary 21, 1961; Pennsylvania, February 28, 1961; Indiana, March 3,
1961; North Dakota, March 3, 1961; Tennessee, March 6, 1961; Michi-
gan, March 8, 1961; Connecticut, March 9, 1961; Arizona, March 10,
1961; Illinois, March 14, 1961; Nebraska, March 15, 1961; Vermont,
March 15, 1961; Iowa, March 16, 1961; Missouri, March 20, 1961; Okla-
homa, March 21, 1961; Rhode Island, March 22, 1961; Kansas, March 29,
1961; and Ohio, March 29, 1961. Ratification was completed March 29,
1961. The amendment was subsequently ratified by New Hampshire on
March 30, 1961 (when that State annulled and then repeated its ratifica-
tion of March 29, 1961). Arkansas rejected the amendment January 24,
1961.

on August 28, 1962, and was declared by the Administrator of General
Services, in a proclamation dated February 4, 1964, to have been ratified
[116]
[AMENDMENT XXV] § 252
or Vice President, or for Senator or Representa-

tive in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any State by reason of
failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965); Harper v. Virginia State
Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

AMENDMENT XXV.16
SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the Presi-
dent from office or of his death or
§ 252. Presidential
succession and
inability. resignation, the Vice President
shall become President.
by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 States. The dates of these ratifications
were: Illinois, November 14, 1962; New Jersey, December 3, 1962; Or-
egon, January 25, 1963; Montana, January 28, 1963; West Virginia, Feb-
ruary 1, 1963; New York, February 4, 1963; Maryland, February 6, 1963;
California, February 7, 1963; Alaska, February 11, 1963; Rhode Island,
February 14, 1963; Indiana, February 19, 1963; Utah, February 20, 1963;
Michigan, February 20, 1963; Colorado, February 21, 1963; Ohio, Feb-
ruary 27, 1963; Minnesota, February 27, 1963; New Mexico, March 5,
1963; Hawaii, March 6, 1963; North Dakota, March 7, 1963; Idaho,
March 8, 1963; Washington, March 14, 1963; Vermont, March 15, 1963;
Nevada, March 19, 1963; Connecticut, March 20, 1963; Tennessee, March
21, 1963; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1963; Wisconsin, March 26, 1963;
Kansas, March 28, 1963; Massachusetts, March 28, 1963; Nebraska,
April 4, 1963; Florida, April 18, 1963; Iowa, April 24, 1963; Delaware,
May 1, 1963; Missouri, May 13, 1963; New Hampshire, June 12, 1963;
Kentucky, June 27, 1963; Maine, January 16, 1964; and South Dakota,
January 23, 1964. Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. Mis-
sissippi rejected the amendment on December 20, 1962. The amendment
was subsequently ratified by Virginia, February 25, 1977; North Caro-
lina, May 3, 1989; Alabama, Sept. 26, 2002; Texas, May 22, 2009.

on July 7, 1965, and was declared by the Administrator of General Serv-
ices, in a proclamation dated February 23, 1967, to have been ratified by
the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of these ratifications
Continued
[117]
§ 253–§ 254 [AMENDMENT XXV]
SECTION 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the

§ 253. Confirmation by office of the Vice President, the
House and Senate of
nominee to fill vice President shall nominate a Vice
presidential vacancy.
President who shall take office
upon confirmation by a majority vote of both
Houses of Congress.
SECTION 3. Whenever the President transmits
§ 254. President’s to the President pro tempore of the
declaration of
disability. Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his writ-
ten declaration that he is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be dis-
charged by the Vice President as Acting Presi-
dent.
were: Nebraska, July 12, 1965; Wisconsin, July 13, 1965; Oklahoma, July
16, 1965; Massachusetts, August 9, 1965; Pennsylvania, August 18, 1965;
Kentucky, September 15, 1965; Arizona, September 22, 1965; Michigan,
October 5, 1965; Indiana, October 20, 1965; California, October 21, 1965;
Arkansas, November 4, 1965; New Jersey, November 29, 1965; Delaware,
December 7, 1965; Utah, January 17, 1966; West Virginia, January 20,
1966; Maine, January 24, 1966; Rhode Island, January 28, 1966; Colo-
rado, February 3, 1966; New Mexico, February 3, 1966; Kansas, Feb-
ruary 8, 1966; Vermont, February 10, 1966; Alaska, February 18, 1966;
Idaho, March 2, 1966; Hawaii, March 3, 1966; Virginia, March 8, 1966;
Mississippi, March 10, 1966; New York, March 14, 1966; Maryland,
March 23, 1966; Missouri, March 30, 1966; New Hampshire, June 13,
1966; Louisiana, July 5, 1966; Tennessee, January 12, 1967; Wyoming,
January 25, 1967; Iowa, January 26, 1967; Washington, January 26,
1967; Oregon, February 2, 1967; Minnesota, February 10, 1967; Nevada,
February 10, 1967. Ratification was completed February 10, 1967. The
amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, February 14,
1967; Montana, February 15, 1967; South Dakota, March 6, 1967; Ohio,
March 7, 1967; Alabama, March 14, 1967; North Carolina, March 22,
1967; Illinois, March 22, 1967; Texas, April 25, 1967; Florida, May 25,
1967.
[118]
[AMENDMENT XXV] § 255
SECTION 4. Whenever the Vice President and

§ 255. Determination a majority of either the principal of-
of Presidential
inability and Vice ficers of the executive departments
President as Acting
President.
or of such other body as Congress
may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting Presi-
dent.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to
the President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he
shall resume the powers and duties of his office
unless the Vice President and a majority of ei-
ther the principal officers of the executive de-
partment or of such other body as Congress may
by law provide, transmit within four days to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, as-
sembling within forty-eight hours for that pur-
pose if not in session. If the Congress, within
twenty-one days after receipt of the latter writ-
ten declaration, or, if Congress is not in session,
within twenty-one days after Congress is re-
quired to assemble, determines by two-thirds
vote of both Houses that the President is unable
[119]
§ 256 [AMENDMENT XXV]
to discharge the powers and duties of his office,

the Vice President shall continue to discharge
the same as Acting President; otherwise, the
President shall resume the powers and duties of
his office.
Congress has twice performed its responsibility under section two of the
§ 256. Instances in
25th amendment. On October 13, 1973, the Speaker
which House and laid before the House a message from President Nixon
Senate have transmitting his nomination of Gerald R. Ford, Minor-
confirmed nominee asity Leader in the House of Representatives, to be Vice
Vice President;
temporary incapacity
President of the United States, Vice President Agnew
of President. having resigned on October 10, 1973. The Speaker re-
ferred the nomination to the Committee on the Judici-
ary, which under rule X has jurisdiction over matters relating to Presi-
dential succession (Oct. 13, 1973, p. 34032). The nomination of Mr. Ford
to be Vice President was confirmed by the Senate on November 27, 1973
(p. 38225) and by the House on December 6, 1973 (p. 39900), and Vice
President Ford was sworn in in the Chamber of the House of Representa-
tives on December 6 (p. 39925). Subsequently, President Nixon resigned
from office by delivering his written resignation to the Office of the Sec-
retary of State, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 20, on August 9, 1974. Pursuant
to section one of the 25th amendment, Vice President Ford became Presi-
dent, and was sworn in in the East Room at the White House. He nomi-
nated Nelson A. Rockefeller to be Vice President, which nomination was
received in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary on August 20, 1974; the nomination was confirmed by
the Senate on December 10, 1974 (p. 38936) and by the House on December
19, 1974 (p. 41516), and Vice President Rockefeller was sworn in in the
Senate Chamber on December 19, 1974 (p. 41181). On both instances, the
House received the message from the Senate, announcing that body’s con-
firmation of the nominee for Vice President, following the vote on confirma-
tion by the House.
The Chair laid before the House communications from the President
pursuant to section three of this amendment as follows: First, before under-
going sedation for a medical procedure, declaring his impending inability
to discharge the constitutional powers and duties of the Office of President
and advising that the Vice President would discharge those responsibilities
as Acting President until the President declared his ability to resume that
role; and second (after recovering from the sedation and the medical proce-
dure) declaring his ability to resume the discharge of the constitutional
powers and duties of the Office of President, and advising that he was
doing so immediately (July 15, 1985, p. 18955; July 8, 2002, pp. 12089,
12090; July 23, 2007, p. 20036).
[120]
[AMENDMENT XXVI] § 257
AMENDMENT XXVI.17
§ 257. Right to vote States, who are eighteen years of
extended to persons
18 years of age or age or older, to vote shall not be de-
older.
nied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of age.
17 The 26th amendment to the Constitution was proposed by the Con-
gress on March 23, 1971. It was declared, in a certificate of the Adminis-

trator of General Services, dated July 5, 1971, to have been ratified by
the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of ratification were:
Connecticut, March 23, 1971; Delaware, March 23, 1971; Minnesota,
March 23, 1971; Tennessee, March 23, 1971; Washington, March 23,
1971; Hawaii, March 24, 1971; Massachusetts, March 24, 1971; Montana,
March 29, 1971; Arkansas, March 30, 1971; Idaho, March 30, 1971; Iowa,
March 30, 1971; Nebraska, April 2, 1971; New Jersey, April 3, 1971;
Kansas, April 7, 1971; Michigan, April 7, 1971; Alaska, April 8, 1971;
Maryland, April 8, 1971; Indiana, April 8, 1971; Maine, April 9, 1971;
Vermont, April 16, 1971; Louisiana, April 17, 1971; California, April 19,
1971; Colorado, April 27, 1971; Pennsylvania, April 27, 1971; Texas,
April 27, 1971; South Carolina, April 28, 1971; West Virginia, April 28,
1971; New Hampshire, May 13, 1971; Arizona, May 14, 1971; Rhode Is-
land, May 27, 1971; New York, June 2, 1971; Oregon, June 4, 1971; Mis-
souri, June 14, 1971; Wisconsin, June 22, 1971; Illinois, June 29, 1971;
Alabama, June 30, 1971; Ohio, June 30, 1971; North Carolina, July 1,
1971; Oklahoma, July 1, 1971.
Ratification was completed on July 1, 1971.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Virginia, July 8, 1971;
Wyoming, July 8, 1971; Georgia, October 4, 1971.
[121]
§ 258 [AMENDMENT XXVII]
AMENDMENT XXVII.18
No law, varying the compensation for the serv-
§ 258. Timing of law ices of the Senators and Represent-
varying congressional
compensation. atives, shall take effect, until an
election of Representatives shall
have intervened.
To quell speculation over the efficacy of a ratification process spanning
two centuries, the House adopted a concurrent resolution declaring the
ratification of the amendment (H. Con. Res. 320, 102d Cong., May 19,
1992, p. 11779 (adopted May 20, 1992, p. 12051)). The Senate adopted
both a separate concurrent resolution and a simple resolution making simi-
lar declarations (S. Con. Res. 120 and S. Res. 298, 102d Cong., May 20,
1992, p. 11869). Neither House considered the concurrent resolution of
the other. For a concurrent resolution declaring the ratification of the 14th
amendment, see July 21, 1868. For opinions of the Supreme Court con-
cerning the duration of the ratification process and the contemporaneity
of State ratifications, see Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) and Coleman
v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
18 The 27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on September
25, 1789. It was declared to have been ratified by the legislatures of 39

of the 50 States in a certificate of the Archivist dated May 18, 1992. The
dates of ratification were: Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina,
December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; Delaware, Janu-
ary 28, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791;
Ohio, May 6, 1873; Wyoming, March 6, 1978; Maine, April 27, 1983; Col-
orado, April 22, 1984; South Dakota, February 21, 1985; New Hamp-
shire, March 7, 1985; Arizona, April 3, 1985; Tennessee, May 23, 1985;
Oklahoma, July 10, 1985; New Mexico, February 14, 1986; Indiana, Feb-
ruary 24, 1986; Utah, February 25, 1986; Arkansas, March 6, 1987; Mon-
tana, March 17, 1987; Connecticut, May 13, 1987; Wisconsin, July 15,
1987; Georgia, February 2, 1988; West Virginia, March 10, 1988; Lou-
isiana, July 7, 1988; Iowa, February 9, 1989; Idaho, March 23, 1989; Ne-
vada, April 26, 1989; Alaska, May 6, 1989; Oregon, May 19, 1989; Min-
nesota, May 22, 1989; Texas, May 25, 1989; Kansas, April 5, 1990; Flor-
ida, May 31, 1990; North Dakota, March 25, 1991; Alabama, May 5,
1992; Missouri, May 5, 1992; Michigan, May 7, 1992; New Jersey, May
7, 1992.
Ratification was completed on May 7, 1992. The amendment was sub-
sequently ratified by Illinois, May 12, 1992; California, June 26, 1992;
Rhode Island, June 10, 1993; Hawaii, April 26, 1994; Washington, Au-
gust 12, 1995; Kentucky, March 21, 1996.
[122]
[AMENDMENT XXVII] § 258
For Federal court opinions upholding congressional cost-of-living adjust-

ments for Members under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1716),
see Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992), aff’d, 30 F.3d
156 (D.C. Cir 1994); Schaffer v. Clinton, 54 F. Supp.2d 1014 (D.Colo. 1999).
[123]
[125]
JEFFERSON’S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY
PRACTICE 1
SEC. I—IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO RULES
Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of

the House of Commons, used to say,
§ 283. Rules as related
to the privileges of
minorities. ‘‘It was a maxim he had often heard
when he was a young man, from old
1 Jefferson’s Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his own
guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice Presidency,

from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by rule that still exists, provided
that the provisions of the Manual should ‘‘govern the House in all cases
to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with
the Rules and orders of the House.’’ Rule XXIX, § 1105, infra. In 1880
the committee that revised the Rules of the House declared in their re-
port that the Manual, ‘‘compiled as it was for the use of the Senate exclu-
sively and made up almost wholly of collations of English parliamentary
practice and decisions, it was never especially valuable as an authority
in the House of Representatives, even in its early history, and for many
years past has been rarely quoted in the House’’ (V, 6757). This state-
ment, although sanctioned by high authority, is extreme, for in certain
parts of the Manual are to be found the foundations of some of the most
important portions of the House’s practice.
The Manual is regarded by English parliamentar-
§ 284. The Manual as a
statement of
ians as the best statement of what the law of Par-
parliamentary law. liament was at the time Jefferson wrote it. Jefferson
himself says, in the preface of the work:
‘‘I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my informa-
tion, among which Mr. Hatsel’s most valuable book is preeminent; but
as he has only treated some general heads, I have been obliged to recur
to other authorities in support of a number of common rules of practice,
to which his plan did not descend. Sometimes each authority cited sup-
ports the whole passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken together. Some-
times the authority goes only to a part of the text, the residue being in-
ferred from known rules and principles. For some of the most familiar
Continued
[127]
§ 283
and experienced Members, that nothing tended

more to throw power into the hands of adminis-
tration, and those who acted with the majority
of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or
departure from, the rules of proceeding; that
these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, oper-
ated as a check and control on the actions of the
majority, and that they were, in many instances,
a shelter and protection to the minority, against
the attempts of power.’’ So far the maxim is cer-
tainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as
it is always in the power of the majority, by
their numbers, to stop any improper measures
proposed on the part of their opponents, the only
weapons by which the minority can defend
themselves against similar attempts from those
in power are the forms and rules of proceeding
which have been adopted as they were found
forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer having sup-
posed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed to know. The state-
ment of these must rest on their notoriety.
‘‘I am aware that authorities can often be produced in opposition to the
rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An attention to dates will gen-
erally remove their weight. The proceedings of Parliament in ancient
times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing.
They have been, however, constantly advancing toward uniformity and
accuracy, and have now attained a degree of aptitude to their object be-
yond which little is to be desired or expected.
‘‘Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may not have
mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and especially in
those minor forms, which, being practiced daily, are supposed known to
everybody, and therefore have not been committed to writing. Our re-
sources in this quarter of the globe for obtaining information on that part
of the subject are not perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which those
who come after me will successively correct and fill up, till a code of rules
shall be formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of which may be
accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity, and impar-
tiality.’’
[128]
§ 285
necessary, from time to time, and are become

the law of the House, by a strict adherence to
which the weaker party can only be protected
from those irregularities and abuses which these
forms were intended to check, and which the
wantonness of power is but too often apt to sug-
gest to large and successful majorities, 2 Hats.,
171, 172.
And whether these forms be in all cases the
§ 285. Necessity of most rational or not is really not of
rules of action.
so great importance. It is much
more material that there should be a rule to go
by than what that rule is; that there may be a
uniformity of proceeding in business not subject
to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of
the members. It is very material that order, de-
cency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified
public body. 2 Hats., 149.
Jefferson also says in his preface, as to the source most desirable at
that time from which to draw principles of procedure:
‘‘But to what system of rules is he to recur, as sup-
parliamentary law to
plementary to those of the Senate? To this there can
the early practice of be but one answer: To the system of regulations
Congress. adopted for the government of some one of the par-
liamentary bodies within these States, or of that
which has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model
which we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the modi-
fications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in publications
possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are probably as wisely con-
structed for governing the debates of a deliberative body, and obtaining
its true sense, as any which can become known to us; and the acquies-
cence of the Senate, hitherto, under the references to them, has given
them the sanction of the approbation.’’
Those portions of the Manual that refer exclusively to Senate proce-
dure or that refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the House
have been omitted. Paragraphs from the Constitution of the United
States have also been omitted, because the Constitution is printed in full
in this volume.
[129]
§ 287
Whether the House is in order so that a Member may proceed in debate

is determined by the Chair (Apr. 23, 2008, p. l). Alleged partiality in
making such a determination has been renounced (July 31, 2008, p. l).
The comportment of a presiding officer has formed the basis of a question
of privilege (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783).
* * * * *
SEC. III—PRIVILEGE
The privileges of members of Parliament, from

§ 287. Privileges of small and obscure beginnings, have
members of
Parliament. been advancing for centuries with a
firm and never yielding pace.
Claims seem to have been brought forward from
time to time, and repeated, till some example of
their admission enabled them to build law on
that example. We can only, therefore, state the
points of progression at which they now are. It
is now acknowledged, 1st. That they are at all
times exempted from question elsewhere, for
anything said in their own House; that during
the time of privilege, 2d. Neither a member him-
self, his, order H. of C. 1663, July 16, wife, nor
his servants (familiares sui), for any matter of
their own, may be, Elsynge, 217; 1 Hats., 21; 1
Grey’s Deb., 133, arrested on mesne process, in
any civil suit: 3d. Nor be detained under execu-
tion, though levied before time of privilege: 4th.
Nor impleaded, cited, or subpoenaed in any
court: 5th. Nor summoned as a witness or juror:
6th. Nor may their lands or goods be distrained:
7th. Nor their persons assaulted, or characters
traduced. And the period of time covered by
privilege, before and after the session, with the
practice of short prorogations under the conniv-
[130]
§ 288
ance of the Crown, amounts in fact to a per-

petual protection against the course of justice. In
one instance, indeed, it has been relaxed by the
10 G. 3, c. 50, which permits judiciary pro-
ceedings to go on against them. That these privi-
leges must be continually progressive, seems to
result from their rejecting all definition of them;
the doctrine being, that ‘‘their dignity and inde-
pendence are preserved by keeping their privi-
leges indefinite; and that ‘the maxims upon
which they proceed, together with the method of
proceeding, rest entirely in their own breast, and
are not defined and ascertained by any par-
ticular stated laws.’ ’’ 1 Blackst., 163, 164.
For a modern discussion of privileges of Members of Parliament, see
Report of Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the House of Com-
mons (H.C. 214–1, Mar. 30, 1999).
It was probably from this view of the en-

§ 288. Privilege of croaching character of privilege that
Members of Congress
under the the framers of our Constitution, in
Constitution.
their care to provide that the laws
shall bind equally on all, and especially that
those who make them shall not exempt them-
selves from their operation, have only privileged
‘‘Senators and Representatives’’ themselves from
the single act of ‘‘arrest in all cases except trea-
son, felony, and breach of the peace, during their
attendance at the session of their respective
Houses, and in going to and returning from the
same, and from being questioned in any other
place for any speech or debate in either House.’’
Const. U.S. Art I, Sec. 6. Under the general au-
thority ‘‘to make all laws necessary and proper
[131]
§ 289
for carrying into execution the powers given

them,’’ Const. U.S., Art. II, Sec. 8, they may pro-
vide by law the details which may be necessary
for giving full effect to the enjoyment of this
privilege. No such law being as yet made, it
seems to stand at present on the following
ground: 1. The act of arrest is void, ab initio. 2
Stra., 989. 2. The member arrested may be dis-
charged on motion, 1 Bl., 166; 2 Stra., 990; or by
habeas corpus under the Federal or State au-
thority, as the case may be; or by a writ of privi-
lege out of the chancery, 2 Stra., 989, in those
States which have adopted that part of the laws
of England. Orders of the House of Commons,
1550, February 20. 3. The arrest being unlawful,
is a trespass for which the officer and others
concerned are liable to action or indictment in
the ordinary courts of justice, as in other cases
of unauthorized arrest. 4. The court before
which the process is returnable is bound to act
as in other cases of unauthorized proceeding,
and liable, also, as in other similar cases, to
have their proceedings stayed or corrected by
the superior courts.
The time necessary for going to, and returning
§ 289. Privilege as to from, Congress, not being defined,
going and returning.
it will, of course, be judged of in
every particular case by those who will have to
decide the case. While privilege was understood
in England to extend, as it does here, only to ex-
emption from arrest, eundo, morando, et
redeundo, the House of Commons themselves de-
cided that ‘‘a convenient time was to be under-
[132]
§ 290–§ 291a
stood.’’ (1580,) 1 Hats., 99, 100. Nor is the law

so strict in point of time as to require the party
to set out immediately on his return, but allows
him time to settle his private affairs, and to pre-
pare for his journey; and does not even scan his
road very nicely, nor forfeit his protection for a
little deviation from that which is most direct;
some necessity perhaps constraining him to it. 2
Stra., 986, 987.
This privilege from arrest, privileges, of
§ 290. Privilege of course, against all process the dis-
Members as related to
rights of courts to obedience to which is punishable by
summon witnesses
and jurors.
an attachment of the person; as a
subpoena ad respondendum, or
testificandum, or a summons on a jury; and with
reason, because a Member has superior duties to
perform in another place. When a Representa-
tive is withdrawn from his seat by summons, the
40,000 people whom he represents lose their
voice in debate and vote, as they do on his vol-
untary absence; when a Senator is withdrawn by
summons, his State loses half its voice in debate
and vote, as it does on his voluntary absence.
The enormous disparity of evil admits no com-
parison.
The House has decided that the summons of a court to Members to attend
and testify constituted a breach of privilege, and di-
§ 291a. Attitude of the
House as to demandsrected them to disregard the mandate (III, 2661); but
of the courts. in other cases wherein Members informed the House
that they had been summoned before the District Court
of the United States for the District of Columbia or other courts, the House
authorized them to respond (III, 2662; Feb. 23, 1948, p. 1557; Mar. 5, 1948,
p. 2224; Apr. 8, 1948, p. 4264; Apr. 12, 1948, p. 4347; Apr. 14, 1948, p.
4461; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4529; Apr. 28, 1948, p. 5009; May 6, 1948, pp.
5433, 5451; Feb. 2, 1950, p. 1399; Apr. 4, 1951, p. 3320; Apr. 9, 1951,
p. 3525; Apr. 12, 1951, pp. 3751, 3752; Apr. 13, 1951, p. 3915; June 4,
[133]
§ 291a
1951, p. 6084; June 22, 1951, p. 7001; Sept. 18, 1951, p. 11571; Sept. 27,
1951, p. 12292; Mar. 5, 1953, p. 1658; Mar. 18, 1953, p. 2085; Mar. 11,
1954, p. 3102; July 19, 1954, p. 10904; Apr. 9, 1956, p. 5970; Apr. 10,
1956, p. 5991). The House, however, has declined to make a general rule
permitting Members to waive their privilege, preferring that the Member
in each case should apply for permission (III, 2660). Also in maintenance
of its privilege the House has refused to permit the Clerk or other officers
to produce in court, in obedience to a summons, an original paper from
the files, but has given the court facilities for making copies (III, 2664,
2666; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 29, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948,
p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p.
1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p.
3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Jan. 22, 1953, p. 498; May 25, 1953, p.
5523; Jan. 28, 1954, p. 964; Feb. 25, 1954, p. 2281; July 1, 1955, p. 9818;
Apr. 12, 1956, p. 6258; Apr. 24, 1958, p. 7262; Apr. 29, 1958, p. 7636;
Sept. 16, 1974, p. 31123; Jan. 19, 1977, p. 1728), but on one occasion,
in which the circumstances warranted such action, the Clerk was permitted
to respond and take with him certified copies of certain documents de-
scribed in the subpoena (H. Res. 601, Oct. 29, 1969, p. 32005); and on
the rare occasions in which the House has permitted the production of
an original paper from its files, it has made explicit provision for its return
(H. Res. 1022, 1023, Jan. 16, 1968, p. 80; H. Res. 1429, July 27, 1976,
p. 24089). No officer or employee, except by authority of the House, should
produce before any court a paper from the files of the House, nor furnish
a copy of any paper except by authority of the House or a statute (III,
2663; VI, 587; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 30, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May
6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13,
1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12,
1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Mar. 10, 1954, p. 3046; Feb. 7,
1955, p. 1215; May 7, 1956, p. 7588; Dec. 18, 1974, p. 40925). In the 98th
Congress, the House adopted a resolution denying compliance with a sub-
poena issued by a Federal Court for the production of records in the posses-
sion of the Clerk (documents of a select committee from the prior Congress),
where the Speaker and joint leadership had instructed the Clerk in the
previous Congress not to produce such records and where the Court refused
to stay the subpoena or to allow the select committee to intervene to protect
its interest; the resolution directed the Counsel to the Clerk to assert the
rights and privileges of the House and to take all steps necessary to protect
the rights of the House (Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10417). On appeal from a subse-
quent district court judgment finding the Clerk in contempt, the Court
of Appeals reversed on the ground that a subpoena to depose a nonparty
witness under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may only be served
in the district (of Maryland) where it was issued. In re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
634 (4th Cir. 1984). If an official of both Houses of Congress is subpoenaed
in his official capacity, the concurrence of both Houses by concurrent resolu-
[134]
§ 291b
tion is required to permit compliance (H. Con. Res. 342, July 16, 1975,
pp. 23144–46).
A resolution routinely adopted up to the 95th Congress provided that
when the House had recessed or adjourned Members, officers, and employ-
ees were authorized to appear in response to subpoenas duces tecum, but
prohibited the production of official papers in response thereto; the resolu-
tion also provided that when a court found that official papers, other than
executive session material, were relevant, the court could obtain copies
thereof through the Clerk of the House (see, e.g., H. Res. 12, Jan. 3, 1973,
p. 30). In the 95th Congress, the House for the first time by resolution
permitted this same type of general response whether or not the House
is in session or in adjournment if a court has found that specific documents
in possession of the House are material and relevant to judicial pro-
ceedings. The House reserved to itself the right to revoke this general
permission in any specific case in which the House desires to make a dif-
ferent response (H. Res. 10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979,
p. 19). The permission did not apply to executive session material, such
as a deposition of a witness in executive session of a committee, which
could be released only by a separate resolution passed by the House (H.
Res. 296, June 4, 1979, p. 13180). H. Res. 10 of the 96th Congress was
clarified and revised later in that Congress by H. Res. 722 (Sept. 17, 1980,
pp. 25777–90) and became the basis for rule VIII, added as rule L in the
97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113, see § 697, infra).
Although the statutes provide that the Department of Justice may rep-
§ 291b. Judicial
resent any officer of the House or Senate in the event
appearances on behalf of judicial proceedings against such officer in relation
of House. to the performance of official duties (see 2 U.S.C. 118),
and that the Department of Justice shall generally rep-
resent the interests of the United States in Court (28 U.S.C. 517), the
House has on occasion authorized special appearances on its own behalf
by special counsel when the prerogatives or powers of the House have
been questioned in the courts. The House has adopted privileged resolu-
tions authorizing the chair of a subcommittee to intervene in any judicial
proceeding concerning subpoenas duces tecum issued by that committee,
authorizing the appointment of a special counsel to carry out the purposes
of such a resolution, and providing for the payment from the contingent
fund (now referred to as ‘‘applicable accounts of the House described in
clause 1(k)(1) of rule X’’) of expenses to employ such special counsel (H.
Res. 1420, Aug. 26, 1976, p. 1858; H. Res. 334, May 9, 1977, pp. 13949–
52), authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to employ a special counsel to rep-
resent him in a pending action in Federal court in which he was named
as a defendant, and providing for the payment from the contingent fund
of expenses to employ such counsel (H. Res. 1497, Sept. 2, 1976, p. 28937),
and authorizing the chair of the Committee on House Administration to
intervene as a party in a pending civil action in the U.S. Court of Claims,
to defend on behalf of the House the constitutional authority to make laws
[135]
§ 292–§ 293
necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers, authorizing

the employment of special counsel for such purpose, and providing for the
payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ such counsel (H.
Res. 884, Nov. 2, 1977, p. 36661). The House has authorized the Speaker
to take any steps considered necessary, including intervention as a party
or by submission of briefs amicus curiae, in order to protect the interests
of the House before the court (H. Res. 49, Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304). The
House also has on occasion adopted privileged resolutions, reported from
the Committee on Rules, authorizing standing or select committees to make
applications to courts in connection with their investigations (H. Res. 252,
Feb. 9, 1977, pp. 3966–75; H. Res. 760, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 31329–36; H.
Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981, pp. 3529–33), including an unreported resolution
(adopted by special rule) regarding initiating or intervening in judicial en-
forcement of committee subpoenas (Feb. 14, 2008, p. l), which authority
was continued and expanded in the next Congress (sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). For a discussion of the Office of General Counsel,
which was established to provide legal assistance and representation to
the House without regard to political affiliation and in consultation with
the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, see clause 8 of rule II, § 670, infra.
When either House desires the attendance of a Member of the other
§ 292. Attitude of one
to give evidence it is the practice to ask the other House
House as to demands that the Member have leave to attend, and the use of
of the other for a subpoena is of doubtful propriety (III, 1794). However,
attendance or papers. in one case the Senate did not consider that its privilege
forbade the House to summon one of its officers as a

witness (III, 1798). But when the Secretary of the Senate was subpoenaed
to appear before a committee of the House with certain papers from the
files of the Senate, the Senate discussed the question of privilege before
empowering him to attend (III, 2665). For discussion of the means by which
one House may prefer a complaint against a Member or officer of the other,
see § 373, infra.
So far there will probably be no difference of

opinion as to the privileges of the
§ 293. Power of the
House to punish for
contempts. two Houses of Congress; but in the
following cases it is otherwise. In
December, 1795, the House of Representatives
committed two persons of the name of Randall
and Whitney for attempting to corrupt the integ-
rity of certain Members, which they considered
as a contempt and breach of the privileges of the
House; and the facts being proved, Whitney was
[136]
§ 294
detained in confinement a fortnight and Randall

three weeks, and was reprimanded by the
Speaker. In March, 1796, the House voted a
challenge given to a Member of their House to
be a breach of the privileges of the House; but
satisfactory apologies and acknowledgments
being made, no further proceeding was had.
* * *
The cases of Randall and Whitney (II, 1599–1603) were followed in 1818
by the case of John Anderson, a citizen, who for at-
§ 294. Decision of the
court in Anderson’s tempted bribery of a Member was arrested, tried, and
case. censured by the House (II, 1606). Anderson appealed
to the courts and this procedure finally resulted in a
discussion by the Supreme Court of the United States of the right of the
House to punish for contempts, and a decision that the House by implica-
tion has the power to punish, because ‘‘public functionaries must be left
at liberty to exercise the powers which the people have intrusted to them,’’
and ‘‘the interests and dignity of those who created them require the exer-
tion of the powers indispensable to the attainment of the ends of their
creation. Nor is a casual conflict with the rights of particular individuals
any reason to be urged against the exercise of such powers’’ (II, 1607;
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 226, 227 (1821)). In 1828 an
assault on the President’s secretary in the Capitol gave rise to a question
of privilege that involved a discussion of the inherent power of the House
to punish for contempt (II, 1615). Again in 1832, when the House censured
Samuel Houston, a citizen, for assault on a Member for words spoken in
debate (II, 1616), there was a discussion by the House of the doctrine of
inherent and implied power as opposed to the other doctrine that the House
might exercise no authority not expressly conferred on it by the Constitu-
tion or the laws of the land (II, 1619). In 1865 the House arrested and
censured a citizen for attempted intimidation and assault on a member
(II, 1625); in 1866, a citizen who had assaulted the clerk of a committee
of the House in the Capitol was arrested by order of the House, but because
there was not time to punish in the few remaining days of the session,
the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to turn the prisoner over to the civil
authorities of the District of Columbia (II, 1629); and in 1870 Woods, who
had assaulted a Member on his way to the House, was arrested on warrant
of the Speaker, arraigned at the bar, and imprisoned for a term extending
beyond the adjournment of the session, although not beyond the term of
the existing House (II, 1626–1628).
[137]
§ 295–§ 296
In 1876 the arrest and imprisonment by the House of Hallet Kilbourn,

§ 295. Views of the
a contumacious witness, resulted in a decision by the
court in Kilbourn’s Supreme Court of the United States that the House
case. had no general power to punish for contempt, as in a
case wherein it was proposing to coerce a witness in
an inquiry not within the constitutional authority of the House. The Court
also discussed the doctrine of inherent power to punish, saying in conclu-
sion, ‘‘We are of opinion that the right of the Houses of Representatives
to punish the citizen for a contempt of its authority or a breach of its
privileges can derive no support from the precedents and practices of the
two Houses of the English Parliament, nor from the adjudged cases in
which the English courts have upheld these practices. Nor, taking what
has fallen from the English judges, and especially the later cases on which
we have just commented, is much aid given to the doctrine, that this power
exists as one necessary to enable either House of Congress to exercise
successfully their function of legislation. This latter proposition is one that
we do not propose to decide in the present case, because we are able to
decide it without passing upon the existence or nonexistence of such a
power in aid of the legislative function’’ (Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.
168, 189 (1880); II, 1611). In 1894, in the case of Chapman, another con-
tumacious witness, the Supreme Court affirmed the undoubted right of
either House of Congress to punish for contempt in cases to which its power
properly extends under the expressed terms of the Constitution (II, 1614;
In Re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 (1897)). The nature of the punishment that
the House may inflict was discussed by the Court in Anderson’s case (II,
1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821)).
In the case of Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917), the Court ad-
dressed the following situation:
Appellant, while United States Attorney for the
§ 296. Decision of the
court in Marshall v.
Southern District of New York, conducted a grand jury
Gordon. investigation that led to the indictment of a Member
of the House. Acting on charges of misfeasance and non-
feasance made by the Member against appellant in part before the indict-
ment and renewed with additions afterward, the House by resolution di-
rected its Judiciary Committee to make inquiry and report concerning ap-
pellant’s liability to impeachment. Such inquiry being in progress through
a subcommittee, appellant addressed to the subcommittee’s chair, and gave
to the press, a letter, charging the subcommittee with an endeavor to probe
into and frustrate the action of the grand jury, and couched in terms cal-
culated to arouse the indignation of the members of that committee and
those of the House generally. Thereafter, appellant was arrested in New
York by the Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to a resolution of the House where-
by the letter was characterized as defamatory and insulting and as tending
to bring that body into public contempt and ridicule, and whereby appellant
in writing and publishing such letter was adjudged to be in contempt of
[138]
§ 296
the House in violating its privileges, honor, and dignity. He applied for
habeas corpus.
The court held that the proceedings concerning which the alleged con-
tempt was committed were not impeachment proceedings; that, whether
they were impeachment proceedings or not, the House was without power
by its own action, as distinct from such action as might be taken under
criminal laws, to arrest or punish for such acts as were committed by appel-
lant.
No express power to punish for contempt was granted to the House save
the power to deal with contempts committed by its own Members (art.
I, sec. 5). The possession by Congress of the commingled legislative and
judicial authority to punish for contempts that was exerted by the House
of Commons is at variance with the view and tendency existing in this
country when the Constitution was adopted, as evidenced by the manner
in which the subject was treated in many State constitutions, beginning
at or about that time and continuing thereafter. Such commingling of pow-
ers would be destructive of the basic constitutional distinction between
legislative, executive, and judicial power, and repugnant to limitations that
the Constitution fixes expressly; hence there is no warrant whatever for
implying such a dual power in aid of other powers expressly granted to
Congress. The House has implied power to deal directly with contempt
so far as is necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative authority
expressly granted. Being, however, a power of self-preservation, a means
and not an end, the power does not extend to infliction of punishment,
as such; it is a power to prevent acts that in and of themselves inherently
prevent or obstruct the discharge of legislative duty and to compel the
doing of those things that are essential to the performance of the legislative
functions. As pointed out in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204
(1821), this implied power in its exercise is limited to imprisonment during
the session of the body affected by the contempt.
The authority does not cease when the act complained of has been com-
mitted, but includes the right to determine in the use of legitimate and
fair discretion how far from the nature and character of the act there is
necessity for repression to prevent immediate recurrence, i.e., the contin-
ued existence of the interference or obstruction to the exercise of legislative
power. In such case, unless there be manifest an absolute disregard of
discretion, and a mere exertion of arbitrary power coming within the reach
of constitutional limitations, the exercise of the authority is not subject
to judicial interference. The power is the same in quantity and quality
whether exerted on behalf of the impeachment powers or of the others
to which it is ancillary. The legislative power to provide by criminal laws
for the prosecution and punishment of wrongful acts is not here involved.
The Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 288d) to direct
the Senate legal counsel to bring an action in Federal court to compel
a witness to comply with the subpoena of a committee of the Senate. The
House, in contrast, may either certify such a witness to the appropriate
[139]
§ 297
United States Attorney for possible indictment under the criminal con-
tempt statute (2 U.S.C. 192) or exercise its inherent power to commit for
contempt by detaining the recalcitrant witness in the custody of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms.
(See also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Sinclair v. United
States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935);
Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955); Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S.
496 (1972).)
* * * The editor of the Aurora having, in his

§ 297. Jefferson’s paper of February 19, 1800, in-
statement of
arguments for serted some paragraphs defamatory
inherent power to
punish for contempt.
of the Senate, and failed in his ap-
pearance, he was ordered to be com-
mitted. In debating the legality of this order, it
was insisted, in support of it, that every man, by
the law of nature, and every body of men, pos-
sesses the right of self-defense; that all public
functionaries are essentially invested with the
powers of self-preservation; that they have an
inherent right to do all acts necessary to keep
themselves in a condition to discharge the trusts
confided to them; that whenever authorities are
given, the means of carrying them into execution
are given by necessary implication; that thus we
see the British Parliament exercise the right of
punishing contempts; all the State Legislatures
exercise the same power, and every court does
the same; that, if we have it not, we sit at the
mercy of every intruder who may enter our
doors or gallery, and, by noise and tumult,
render proceeding in business impracticable;
that if our tranquillity is to be perpetually dis-
turbed by newspaper defamation, it will not be
possible to exercise our functions with the req-
uisite coolness and deliberation; and that we
[140]
§ 298
must therefore have a power to punish these dis-

turbers of our peace and proceedings. * * *
* * * To this it was answered, that the Par-
§ 298. Statement of liament and courts of England have
arguments against the
inherent power to cognizance of contempts by the ex-
punish for contempts.
press provisions of their law; that
the State Legislatures have equal authority be-
cause their powers are plenary; they represent
their constituents completely, and possess all
their powers, except such as their constitutions
have expressly denied them; that the courts of
the several States have the same powers by the
laws of their States, and those of the Federal
Government by the same State laws adopted in
each State, by a law of Congress; that none of
these bodies, therefore, derive those powers from
natural or necessary right, but from express law;
that Congress have no such natural or necessary
power, nor any powers but such as are given
them by the Constitution; that that has given
them, directly, exemption from personal arrest,
exemption from question elsewhere for what is
said in their House, and power over their own
members and proceedings; for these no further
law is necessary, the Constitution being the law;
that, moreover, by that article of the Constitu-
tion which authorizes them ‘‘to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the powers vested by the Constitution in them,’’
they may provide by law for an undisturbed ex-
ercise of their functions, e.g., for the punishment
of contempts, of affrays or tumult in their pres-
ence, &c.; but, till the law be made, it does not
[141]
§ 299
exist; and does not exist, from their own neglect;

that, in the meantime, however, they are not un-
protected, the ordinary magistrates and courts of
law being open and competent to punish all un-
justifiable disturbances or defamations, and
even their own sergeant, who may appoint depu-
ties ad libitum to aid him 3 Grey, 59, 147, 255,
is equal to small disturbances; that in requiring
a previous law, the Constitution had regard to
the inviolability of the citizen, as well as of the
Member; as, should one House, in the regular
form of a bill, aim at too broad privileges, it may
be checked by the other, and both by the Presi-
dent; and also as, the law being promulgated,
the citizen will know how to avoid offense. But
if one branch may assume its own privileges
without control, if it may do it on the spur of the
occasion, conceal the law in its own breast, and,
after the fact committed, make its sentence both
the law and the judgment on that fact; if the of-
fense is to be kept undefined and to be declared
only ex re nata, and according to the passions of
the moment, and there be no limitation either in
the manner or measure of the punishment, the
condition of the citizen will be perilous indeed.
* * *
* * * Which of these doctrines is to prevail,
§ 299. Jefferson’s time will decide. Where there is no
suggestion that a law
might define fixed law, the judgment on any par-
procedure in cases of
contempt.
ticular case is the law of that single
case only, and dies with it. When a
new and even a similar case arises, the judg-
ment which is to make and at the same time
[142]
§ 299
apply to the law, is open to question and consid-

eration, as are all new laws. Perhaps Congress
in the mean time, in their care for the safety of
the citizen, as well as that for their own protec-
tion, may declare by law what is necessary and
proper to enable them to carry into execution
the powers vested in them, and thereby hang up
a rule for the inspection of all, which may direct
the conduct of the citizen, and at the same time
test the judgments they shall themselves pro-
nounce in their own case.
In 1837 the House declined to proceed with a bill ‘‘defining the offense
of a contempt of this House, and to provide for the punishment thereof’’
(II, 1598). Congress has, however, prescribed that a witness summoned
to appear before a committee of either House who does not respond or
who refuses to answer a question pertinent to the subject of the inquiry
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor (2 U.S.C. 192).
A resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney the
refusal of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by a House committee
involves the privileges of the House and may be offered from the floor
as privileged if offered by direction of the committee reporting the resolu-
tion (e.g., Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). A committee report to accompany such
resolution may therefore be presented to the House without regard to the
three-day availability requirement for other reports (see clause 4 of rule
XIII; July 13, 1971, p. 24720). A resolution with two resolving clauses sepa-
rately directing the certification of the contemptuous conduct of two indi-
viduals is subject to a demand for a division of the question as to each
individual (contempt proceedings against Ralph and Joseph Bernstein,
Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3061); as is a resolution with one resolving clause certi-
fying contemptuous conduct of several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200;
contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, § 49.1). A contempt resolution may be
withdrawn as a matter of right before action thereon (Oct. 27, 2000, p.
25200).
In the 97th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the failure of an official
of the executive branch (Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency) to submit executive branch documents to a House sub-
committee pursuant to a subcommittee subpoena. This was the first occa-
sion on which the House cited an executive official for contempt of Congress
(Dec. 16, 1982, p. 31754). In the following Congress, the House adopted
(as a question of privilege) a resolution reported from the same committee
certifying to the United States Attorney the fact that an agreement had
[143]
§ 300
been entered into between the committee and the executive branch for
access by the committee to the documents that Anne Gorsuch had failed
to submit and that were the subject of the contempt citation (where the
contempt had not yet been prosecuted) (Aug. 3, 1983, p. 22692). In other
cases in which compliance had subsequently been attained in the same
Congress, the House has adopted privileged resolutions certifying the facts
to the United States Attorney to the end that contempt proceedings be
discontinued (see Deschler, ch. 15, § 21). In the 98th Congress, the House
adopted a privileged resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the
United States Attorney the refusal of a former official of the executive
branch to obey a subpoena to testify before a subcommittee (H. Res. 200,
May 18, 1983, p. 12720). In the 106th Congress the House considered a
resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney
the refusal of three individuals to obey a subpoena duces tecum and to
answer certain questions while appearing under subpoena before a sub-
committee, which resolution was withdrawn before action thereon (H. Res.
657, Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25217). In the 110th Congress, the House adopted
(by special rule) a resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United
States Attorney the refusal of White House Chief of Staff to produce docu-
ments to a committee, and former White House Counsel to appear, testify,
and produce documents to a subcommittee, each as directed by subpoena
(Feb. 14, 2008, p. l).
A resolution laying on the table a message from the President containing
certain averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of Congress was
considered as a question of the privileges of the House as a breach of privi-
lege in a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).
Privilege from arrest takes place by force of
the election; and before a return be
§ 300. Status of
Member-elect as to
made a Member elected may be
privilege, oath,
named of a committee, and is to

committee service, etc.
every extent a Member except that he cannot

vote until he is sworn, Memor., 107, 108.
D’Ewes, 642, col. 2; 643, col. 1. Pet. Miscel. Parl.,
119. Lex. Parl., c. 23.2 Hats., 22, 62.
The Constitution of the United States limits the broad Parliamentary
privilege to the time of attendance on sessions of Congress, and of going
to and returning therefrom. In a case wherein a Member was imprisoned
during a recess of Congress, he remained in confinement until the House,
on assembling, liberated him (III, 2676).
It is recognized in the practice of the House that a Member may be
named to a committee before being sworn, and in some cases Members
have not taken the oath until long afterwards (IV, 4483), although in the
modern practice Members-elect have been elected to standing committees
[144]
§ 301
effective only when sworn (e.g., H. Res. 26, 27; Jan. 6, 1983, p. 132). In
one case, when a Member did not appear to take the oath, the Speaker
with the consent of the House appointed another Member to the committee
in his place (IV, 4484). The status of a Member-elect under the Constitution
undoubtedly differs greatly from the status of a Member-elect under the
law of Parliament. In various inquiries by committees of the House this
question has been examined, with the conclusions that a Member-elect
becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to which elected
(I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government before taking
the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is distinguished from
that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184). Members-elect may resign
or decline before taking the oath (II, 1230–1233, 1235; Jan. 6, 1999, p.
42); they have been excluded (I, 449, 464, 474, 550, 551; VI, 56; Mar. 1,
1967, pp. 4997–5038), and in one case a Member-elect was expelled (I,
476; II, 1262). The names of Members who have not been sworn are not
entered on the roll from which the yeas and nays are called for entry on
the Journal (V, 6048; VIII, 3122), nor are such Members-elect permitted
to vote or introduce bills.
Every man must, at his peril, take notice who

are members of either House re-
§ 301. Relations of
Members and others
to privilege. turned of record. Lex. Parl., 23; 4
Inst., 24.
On Complaint of a breach of privilege, the
party may either be summoned, or sent for in
custody of the sergeant. 1 Grey, 88, 95.
The privilege of a Member is the privilege of
the House. If the Member waive it without
leave, it is a ground for punishing him, but can-
not in effect waive the privilege of the House. 3
Grey, 140, 222.
Although the privilege of Members of the House is limited by the Con-
stitution, these provisions of the Parliamentary law are applicable, and
persons who have attempted to bribe Members (II, 1599, 1606), assault
them for words spoken in debate (II, 1617, 1625) or interfere with them
while on the way to attend the sessions of the House (II, 1626), have been
arrested by order of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, ‘‘Wherever to
be found.’’ The House has declined to make a general rule to permit Mem-
bers to waive their privilege in certain cases, preferring to give or refuse
permission in each individual case (III, 2660–2662).
In United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979), the Supreme Court
discussed the ability of either an individual Member or the entire Congress
[145]
§ 302–§ 303
to waive the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. The Court found
first, that the Member’s conduct in testifying before a grand jury and volun-
tarily producing documentary evidence of legislative acts protected by the
Clause did not waive its protection. Assuming, without deciding, that a
Member could waive the Clause’s protection against being prosecuted for
a legislative act, the Court said that such a waiver could only be found
after an explicit and unequivocal renunciation of its immunity, which was
absent in this case. Second, passage of the official bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.
201, did not amount to an institutional waiver of the Speech or Debate
Clause for individual Members. Again assuming without deciding whether
Congress could constitutionally waive the Clause for individual Members,
such a waiver could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expres-
sion of legislative intent, and there was no evidence of that in the legislative
history of the statute. The Speech or Debate clause is not an impediment
to the enforcement within the House of the rule prohibiting personalities
in debate (clause 1 of rule XVII, May 25, 1995, p. 14436).
For any speech or debate in either House, they

§ 302. Parliamentary shall not be questioned in any other
law as to questioning
a Member in another place. Const. U.S., I, 6; S. P. protest
place for speech or
debate.
of the Commons to James I, 1621; 2
Rapin, No. 54, pp. 211, 212. But
this is restrained to things done in the House in
a parliamentary course. 1 Rush, 663. For he is
not to have privilege contra morem parlia-
mentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits of
his place and duty. Com. p.
If an offense be committed by a member in the
§ 303. Relation of the House, of which the House has cog-
courts to
parliamentary nizance, it is an infringement of
privilege.
their right for any person or court
to take notice of it till the House has punished
the offender or referred him to a due course.
Lex. Parl., 63.
Privilege is in the power of the House, and is
a restraint to the proceeding of inferior courts,
but not of the House itself. 2 Nalson, 450; 2
Grey, 399. For whatever is spoken in the House
[146]
§ 304–§ 305
is subject to the censure of the House; and of-

fenses of this kind have been severely punished
by calling the person to the bar to make submis-
sion, committing him to the tower, expelling the
House, &c. Scob., 72; L. Parl., c. 22.
§ 304. Breach of It is a breach of order for the
privilege to refuse to
put a question which
Speaker to refuse to put a question
is in order. which is in order. 1 Hats., 175–6; 5
Grey, 133.
Where the Clerk, presiding during organization of the House, declined
to put a question, a Member put the question from the floor (I, 67).
And even in cases of treason, felony, and

breach of the peace, to which privi-
§ 305. Parliamentary
law of privilege as
lege does not extend as to sub-
related to treason,
felony, etc.
stance, yet in Parliament a member
is privileged as to the mode of proceeding. The
case is first to be laid before the House, that it
may judge of the fact and of the ground of the
accusation, and how far forth the manner of the
trial may concern their privilege; otherwise it
would be in the power of other branches of the
government, and even of every private man,
under pretenses of treason, &c., to take any man
from his service in the House, and so, as many,
one after another, as would make the House
what he pleaseth. Dec’l of the Com. on the King’s
declaring Sir John Hotham a traitor. 4 Rushw.,
586. So, when a member stood indicted for fel-
ony, it was adjudged that he ought to remain of
the House till conviction; for it may be any
man’s case, who is guiltless, to be accused and
indicted of felony, or the like crime. 23 El., 1580;
D’Ewes, 283, col. 1; Lex. Parl., 133.
[147]
§ 306–§ 308
Where Members of the House have been arrested by the State authorities
the cases have not been laid first before the House; but when the House
has learned of the proceedings, it has investigated to ascertain if the crime
charged was actually within the exceptions of the Constitution (III, 2673),
and in one case in which it found a Member imprisoned for an offense
not within the exceptions it released him by the hands of its own officer
(III, 2676).
The House has not usually taken action in the infrequent instances in
§ 306. Practice as to
which Members have been indicted for felony, and in
Members indicted or one or two instances Members under indictment or
convicted. pending appeal on conviction have been appointed to
committees (IV, 4479). The House has, however,
adopted a resolution expressing the sense of the House that Members con-
victed of certain felonies should refrain from participation in committee
business and from voting in the House until the presumption of innocence
is reinstated or until re-elected to the House (see H. Res. 128, Nov. 14,
1973, p. 36944), and that principle has been incorporated in the Code of
Official Conduct (clause 10 of rule XXIII). A Senator after indictment was
omitted from committees at his own request (IV, 4479), and a Member
who had been convicted in one case did not appear in the House during
the Congress (IV, 4484, footnote). A Senator in one case withdrew from
the Senate pending his trial (II, 1278). After conviction but before the Sen-
ator’s resignation, and while an appeal for rehearing was pending, the
Senate continued its investigation (II, 1282).
When it is found necessary for the public serv-
§ 307. Parliamentary ice to put a Member under arrest,
law as to arrest of a
Member. or when, on any public inquiry,
matter comes out which may lead
to affect the person of a member, it is the prac-
tice immediately to acquaint the House, that
they may know the reasons for such a pro-
ceeding, and take such steps as they think prop-
er. 2 Hats., 259. Of which see many examples.
Ib., 256, 257, 258. But the communication is
subsequent to the arrest. 1 Blackst., 167.
It is highly expedient, says Hatsel, for the due
§ 308. A breach of preservation of the privileges of the
privilege for one
House to encroach or separate branches of the legisla-
interfere as to the
other.
ture, that neither should encroach
on the other, or interfere in any
[148]
§ 309–§ 310
matter depending before them, so as to preclude,

or even influence, that freedom of debate which
is essential to a free council. They are, therefore,
not to take notice of any bills or other matters
depending, or of votes that have been given, or
of speeches which have been held, by the mem-
bers of either of the other branches of the legis-
lature, until the same have been communicated
to them in the usual parliamentary manner. 2
Hats., 252; 4 Inst., 15; Seld. Jud., 53.
Thus the King’s taking notice of the bill for
§ 309. Relations of the suppressing soldiers, depending be-
Sovereign to the
Parliament and its fore the House; his proposing a pro-
Members.
visional clause for a bill before it
was presented to him by the two Houses; his ex-
pressing displeasure against some persons for
matters moved in Parliament during the debate
and preparation of a bill, were breaches of privi-
lege, 2 Nalson, 743; and in 1783, December 17,
it was declared a breach of fundamental privi-
leges, &c., to report any opinion or pretended
opinion of the King on any bill or proceeding de-
pending in either House of Parliament, with a
view to influence the votes of the members, 2
Hats., 251, 6.
* * * * *
SEC. VI—QUORUM
* * * * *
In general the chair is not to be taken till a
§ 310. Necessity of a quorum for business is present; un-
quorum during
business, including less, after due waiting, such a
debate.
quorum be despaired of, when the
[149]
§ 311
chair may be taken and the House adjourned.

And whenever, during business, it is observed
that a quorum is not present, any member may
call for the House to be counted, and being
found deficient, business is suspended. 2 Hats.,
125, 126.
In the House the Speaker takes the Chair at the hour to which the
House stood adjourned and there is no requirement that the House proceed
immediately to establish a quorum, although the Speaker has the authority
under clause 7 of rule XX to recognize for a call of the House at any time.
The question of a quorum is not considered unless properly raised (IV,
2733; VI, 624), and it is not in order for the Speaker to recognize for a
point of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the pending question or
proposition to a vote. Although it was formerly the rule that a quorum
was necessary for debate as well as business (IV, 2935–2949), in the 94th
Congress the House restricted the Chair’s ability to recognize the absence
of a quorum (clause 7 of rule XX). Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the House
to operate with a ‘‘provisional quorum’’ where the House is without a
quorum due to catastrophic circumstances. Title III of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 2006, amended Federal election law to require
States to hold special elections for the House within 49 days after a vacancy
is announced by the Speaker in the extraordinary circumstance that vacan-
cies in representation from the States exceed 100 (P.L. 109–55; 2 U.S.C.
8).
SEC. VII—CALL OF THE HOUSE
On the call of the House, each person rises up

§ 311. Parliamentary as he is called, and answereth; the
rules for call of the
House. absentees are then only noted, but
no excuse to be made till the House
be fully called over. Then the absentees are
called a second time, and if still absent, excuses
are to be heard. Ord. House of Commons, 92.
They rise that their persons may be recog-
nized; the voice, in such a crowd, being an insuf-
ficient verification of their presence. But in so
small a body as the Senate of the United States,
the trouble of rising cannot be necessary.
[150]
§ 312
Orders for calls on different days may subsist

at the same time. 2 Hats., 72.
Rule XX provides for a call of the House. Members do not rise on answer-
ing, and quorum calls are normally conducted by electronic device (clause
2(a) of rule XX). Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the House to operate with
a ‘‘provisional quorum’’ where the House is without a quorum due to cata-
strophic circumstances.
* * * * *
SEC. IX—SPEAKER
* * * * *
When but one person is proposed, and no ob-
§ 312. Election of jection made, it has not been usual
Speaker.
in Parliament to put any question
to the House; but without a question the mem-
bers proposing him conduct him to the chair.
But if there be objection, or another proposed, a
question is put by the Clerk. 2 Hats., 158. As are
also questions of adjournment. 6 Gray, 406.
Where the House debated and exchanged mes-
sages and answers with the King for a week
without a Speaker, till they were prorogued.
They have done it de die in diem for fourteen
days. 1 Chand., 331, 335.
On October 23, 2000, the House of Commons, pursuant to a Standing
Order, elected a new Speaker after rejection of twelve other nominees of-
fered one at a time as amendments to the question. The amendments were
offered after refusal of the ‘‘Father of the House of Commons’’ to entertain
a motion to change the Standing Order to require a preliminary secret
ballot. On March 22, 2001, and on October 29, 2002, the House of Commons
adopted Standing Order 1B, requiring that the election of a new Speaker
be by secret ballot (Standing Orders of the House of Commons—Public
Business 2003).
For a discussion of the election of the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives, see § 27, supra.
[151]
§ 313–§ 314
In the Senate, a President pro tempore, in the

§ 313. Election of absence of the Vice-President, is
President pro tempore
of the Senate. proposed and chosen by ballot. His
office is understood to be deter-
mined on the Vice-President’s appearing and
taking the chair, or at the meeting of the Senate
after the first recess.
In the later practice the President pro tempore has usually been chosen
by resolution. In 1876 the Senate determined that the tenure of the Office
of a President pro tempore elected at one session does not expire at the
meeting of Congress after the first recess, the Vice President not having
appeared to take the chair; that the death of the Vice President does not
have the effect of vacating the Office of President pro tempore; and that
the President pro tempore holds office at the pleasure of the Senate (II,
1417). In the 107th Congress the Senate elected two Presidents of the
Senate pro tempore for different periods when the majority of the Senate
shifted after inauguration of the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 7).
Where the Speaker has been ill, other Speak-

ers pro tempore have been ap-
law as to choice of
pointed. Instances of this are 1 H.,
Speaker pro tempore.
4. Sir John Cheyney, and Sir Wil-

liam Sturton, and in 15 H., 6. Sir John Tyrrel,
in 1656, January 27; 1658, March 9; 1659, Janu-
ary 13.
Sir Job Charlton ill, Sey-
mour chosen, 1673, Feb- Not merely pro
ruary 18. tem. 1 Chand.,
Seymour being ill, Sir 169, 276, 277. "
Robert Sawyer chosen,
1678, April 15.
Sawyer being ill, Seymour chosen.
Thorpe in execution, a new Speaker chosen, 31
H. VI, 3 Grey, 11; and March 14, 1694, Sir John
[152]
§ 315–§ 316
Trevor chosen. There have been no later in-

stances. 2 Hats., 161; 4 Inst., 8; L. Parl., 263.
The House, by clause 8 of rule I, has provided for appointment and elec-
tion of Speakers pro tempore. Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C.
25), the Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker, at the convening
of a new Congress, as being of higher constitutional privilege than a resolu-
tion to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead provide for the elec-
tion of a Speaker pro tempore pending the disposition of certain ethics
charges against the nominee of the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115).
A Speaker may be removed at the will of the

§ 315. Removal of the House, and a Speaker pro tempore
Speaker.
appointed, 2 Grey, 186; 5 Grey, 134.
A resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant presents a question
of constitutional privilege (VI, 35), though the House has never removed
a Speaker. It has on several occasions removed or suspended other officers,
such as Clerk and Doorkeeper (I, 287–290, 292; II, 1417). A resolution
for the removal of an officer is presented as a matter of privilege (I, 284–
286; VI, 35). The Speaker may remove the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and
Chief Administrative Officer under clause 1 of rule II.
SEC. X—ADDRESS
* * * * *
A joint address of both Houses of Parliament
§ 316. Addresses to the is read by the Speaker of the House
President.
of Lords. It may be attended by
both Houses in a body, or by a Committee from
each House, or by the two Speakers only. An ad-
dress of the House of Commons only may be pre-
sented by the Whole House, or by the Speaker,
9 Grey, 473; 1 Chandler, 298, 301; or by such
particular members as are of the privy council.
2 Hats., 278.
In the first years of Congress the President annually delivered an ad-
dress to the two Houses in joint session, and the House then prepared
an address, which the Speaker, attended by the House, carried to the Presi-
dent. A joint rule of 1789 also provided for the presentation of joint address-
es of the two Houses to the President (V, 6630). In 1876 the joint rules
of the House were abrogated, including the joint rule providing for presen-
[153]
§ 317
tation of the joint addresses of the two Houses to the President (V, 6782–
6787). In 1801 President Jefferson transmitted a message in writing and
discontinued the practice of making addresses in person. From 1801 to
1913 all messages were sent in writing (V, 6629), but President Wilson
resumed the custom of making addresses in person on April 8, 1913, and,
with the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333), the custom has been
followed generally by subsequent Presidents.
SEC. XI—COMMITTEES
Standing committees, as of Privileges and

§ 317. Appointment of Elections, &c., are usually ap-
standing committees;
and designation and pointed at the first meeting, to con-
duties of chairs
thereof.
tinue through the session. The per-
son first named is generally per-
mitted to act as chairman. But this is a matter
of courtesy; every committee having a right to
elect their own chairman, who presides over
them, puts questions, and reports their pro-
ceedings to the House. 4 inst., 11, 12; Scob., 9;
1 Grey, 122.
Before the 62d Congress, standing as well as select committees and their
chairs were appointed by the Speaker, but under the present form of rule
X, adopted in 1911, continued as a part of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, and revised under the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), standing committees
and their respective chairs are elected by the House (IV, 4448; VIII, 2178).
Owing to their number and size, committees are not usually elected imme-
diately, but resolutions providing for such elections are presented by the
majority and minority parties pursuant to clause 5 of rule X as soon as
they are able to perfect the lists. A committee may order its report to
be made by the chair, or by some other member (IV, 4669), even by a
member of the minority party (IV, 4672, 4673), or by a Delegate (July
1, 1958, p. 12871 (Burns of Hawaii)); and the chair sometimes submits
a report in which the chair has not concurred (IV, 4670). Clause 2 of rule
XIII requires that a report that has been approved by the committee must
be filed with the House within seven calendar days after a written request
from a majority of the committee is submitted to the committee clerk.
[154]
§ 318–§ 320
At these committees the members are to speak

§ 318. Parliamentary standing, and not sitting; though
law as to debate in
standing and select there is reason to conjecture it was
committees.
formerly otherwise. D’Ewes, 630, col.
1; 4 Parl. Hist., 440; 2 Hats., 77.
Their proceedings are not to be published, as
§ 319. Secrecy of they are of no force till confirmed
committee procedure.
by the House. Rushw., part 3, vol.
2, 74; 3 Grey, 401; Scob., 39.* * *
In the House it is entirely within rule and usage for a committee to
conduct its proceedings in secret (III, 1694, 1732; IV, 4558–4564; see also
clause 2(g) of rule XI), and the House may not abrogate the secrecy of
a committee’s proceedings except by suspending the rule (IV, 4565). The
House has no information concerning the proceedings of a committee not
officially reported by the committee (VII, 1015) and it is not in order in
debate to refer to executive session proceedings of a committee that have
not formally been reported to the House (V, 5080–5083; VIII, 2269, 2485,
2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122; Apr. 5, 1967, p. 8411). However,
a complaint that certain remarks that might be uttered in debate would
improperly disclose executive-session material of a committee is not cog-
nizable as a point of order in the House if the Chair is not aware of the
executive-session status of the information (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24648). On
one occasion a Member was permitted to refer to the unreported executive
session proceedings of a subcommittee to justify his point of order that
a resolution providing for a select committee to inquire into action of the
subcommittee was not privileged (June 30, 1958, p. 12690). In one case
the House authorized the clerk of a committee to disclose by deposition
its proceedings (III, 2604).
Under clause 2 of rule XI, all hearings and business meetings conducted
by standing committees shall be open to the public, except when a com-
mittee, in open session, by record vote, with a majority present, determines
to close the meeting or hearing for that day for the reasons stated in that
clause. In addition, clause 2(k) of rule XI establishes a procedure for closing
a hearing because of defamatory, degrading, or incriminating testimony.
Clause 11(d) of rule X establishes special rules governing the closing of
hearings of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
§ 320. Reception of * * * Nor can they receive a peti-

petitions by
committees.
tion but through the House. 9 Grey,
412.
[155]
§ 321–§ 323
When a committee is charged with an inquiry,

§ 321. Parliamentary if a Member prove to be involved,
law of procedure
when a committee they can not proceed against him
inquiry involves a
Member.
but must make a special report to
the House; whereupon the Member
is heard in his place, or at the bar, or a special
authority is given to the committee to inquire
concerning him. 9 Grey, 523.
Although the authority of this principle has not been questioned by the
§ 322. Practice of
House, there have in special instances been deviations
House when a from it. Thus, in 1832, when a Member had been slain
committee inquiry in a duel, and the fact was notorious that all the prin-
involves a Member. cipals and seconds were Members of the House, the
committee, charged only with investigating the causes
and whether or not there had been a breach of privilege, reported with
their findings recommendations for expulsion and censure of the Members
found to be implicated. There was criticism of this method of procedure
as deviating from the rule of Jefferson’s Manual, but the House did not
recommit the report (II, 1644). In 1857, when a committee charged with
inquiring into accusations against Members not named found certain Mem-
bers implicated, they gave them copies of the testimony and opportunities
to explain to the committee, under oath or otherwise, as they individually
might prefer (III, 1845), but reported recommendations for expulsion with-
out first seeking the order of the House (II, 1275; III, 1844). In 1859 and
1892 a similar procedure occurred (III, 1831, 2637). But the House, in
a case wherein an inquiry had incidentally involved a Member, evidently
considered the parliamentary law as applicable, because it admitted as
of privilege and agreed to a resolution directing the committee to report
the charges (III, 1843). And in cases wherein testimony taken before a
joint committee incidentally impeached the official characters of a Member
and a Senator, the facts in each case were reported to the House interested
(III, 1854). A select committee, appointed to report upon the right of a
Member-elect to be sworn (H. Res. 1, 90th Cong., pp. 14–27, Jan. 10, 1967),
invited him to appear, to testify, and permitted him to be accompanied
by counsel (see H. Rept. 90–27).
And where one House, by a committee, has found a Member of the other
§ 323. Inquiries
implicated, the testimony has been transmitted (II,
involving Members of 1276; III, 1850, 1852, 1853). Where such testimony was
other House. taken in open session of the committee, it was not
thought necessary that it be under seal when sent to
the other House (III, 1851).
[156]
§ 324–§ 326
So soon as the House sits, and a committee is

notified of it, the chairman is in
§ 324. Duty of chair of
a committee when the
House sits. duty bound to rise instantly, and
the members to attend the service
of the House. 2 Nals., 319.
For the current practice of the House, see the annotation following clause
2(i) of rule XI (§ 801, infra).
It appears that on joint committees of the

Lords and Commons each com-
§ 325. Action of joint
committees.
mittee acted integrally in the fol-
lowing instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1
Chandler, 357, 462. In the following instances it
does not appear whether they did or not: 6 Grey,
129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321.
It is the practice in Congress that joint committees shall vote per capita,
and not as representatives of the two Houses (IV, 4425), although the mem-
bership from the House is usually, but not always (IV 4410), larger than
that from the Senate (III, 1946; IV, 4426–4431). But ordinary committees
of conference appointed to settle differences between the two Houses are
not considered joint committees, and the managers of the two Houses vote
separately (V, 6336), each House having one vote. A quorum of a joint
committee seems to have been considered to be a majority of the whole
number rather than a majority of the membership of each House (IV, 4424).
The first named of the Senate members acted as chair in one notable in-
stance (IV, 4424), and in another the joint committee elected its chair (IV,
4447).
SEC. XII—COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The speech, messages, and other matters of

§ 326. Parliamentary great concernment are usually re-
usage as to Committee
of the Whole. ferred to a Committee of the Whole
House (6 Grey, 311), where general
principles are digested in the form of resolu-
tions, which are debated and amended till they
get into a shape which meets the approbation of
a majority. These being reported and confirmed
[157]
§ 327
by the House are then referred to one or more

select committees, according as the subject di-
vides itself into one or more bills. Scob., 36, 44.
Propositions for any charge on the people are es-
pecially to be first made in a Committee of the
Whole. 3 Hats., 127. The sense of the whole is
better taken in committee, because in all com-
mittees everyone speaks as often as he pleases.
Scob., 49. * * *
This provision is largely obsolete, the House having by its rules and
practice provided specifically for procedure in Committee of the Whole,
and having also by its rules for the order of business left no privileged
status for motions to go into Committee of the Whole on matters not already
referred to that committee. The Committee of the Whole no longer origi-
nates resolutions or bills, but receives such as have been formulated by
standing or select committees and referred to it; and when it reports, the
House usually acts at once on the report without reference to select or
other committees (IV, 4705). The practice of referring annual messages
of the President to Committee of the Whole, to be there considered and
reported with recommendations for the reference of various portions to
the proper standing or select committees (V, 6621, 6622), was discontinued
in the 64th Congress (VIII, 3350). The current practice is to refer the an-
nual message to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union and order it printed (Jan. 14, 1969, p. 651). Executive communica-
tions submitted to implement the proposals contained in the State of the
Union Message are referred by the Speaker to the various committees hav-
ing jurisdiction over the subject matter therein.
* * * They generally acquiesce in the chair-
§ 327. Selection of man named by the Speaker; but, as
Chair of Committee of
the Whole. well as all other committees, have a
right to elect one, some member, by
consent, putting the question, Scob., 36; 3 Grey,
301. * * *
The House (by clause 1 of rule XVIII) gives the authority to appoint
the chair of the Committee of the Whole to the Speaker (IV, 4704).
[158]
§ 328–§ 330
* * * The form of going from the House into

§ 328. Form of going committee, is for the Speaker, on
into Committee of the
Whole. motion, to put the question that the
House do now resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to take into consider-
ation such a matter, naming it. If determined in
the affirmative, he leaves the chair and takes a
seat elsewhere, as any other Member; and the
person appointed chairman seats himself at the
Clerk’s table. Scob., 36. * * *
This is the form in the House, except that the chair of the Committee
of the Whole sits in the Speaker’s chair. Clause 1(b) of rule XVIII (former
rule XXIII) was adopted to authorize the Speaker, and it is the modern
practice, when no other business is pending, to declare the House resolved
into Committee of the Whole to consider a measure at any time after the
House has adopted a special order of business providing for consideration
of such measure (and not require a motion), unless the resolution specifies
otherwise (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).
* * * Their quorum is the same as that of the

§ 329. Quorum in House; and if a defect happens, the
Committee of the
Whole. chairman, on a motion and ques-
tion, rises, the Speaker resumes the
chair and the chairman can make no other re-
port than to inform the House of the cause of
their dissolution. * * *
Until 1890 a quorum of the Committee of the Whole was the same as
the quorum of the House; but in 1890 the rule (formerly clause 2 of rule
XXIII, current clause 6 of rule XVIII) fixed it at one hundred (IV, 2966).
Clause 6 of rule XVIII provides the procedure that is followed in Committee
of the Whole in case of failure of a quorum.
* * * If a message is announced during a

§ 330. Rising of committee, the Speaker takes the
committee for
reception of messages. chair and receives it, because the
committee can not. 2 Hats., 125,

126.
[159]
§ 331
In the House, the committee rises informally to receive a message, or

to enable the Speaker to sign and lay before the House an enrolled bill,
at the direction of the Chair without a formal motion from the floor (IV,
4786, footnote; Jan. 28, 1980, p. 888; Feb. 8, 1995, p. 4112); but at this
rising the House may not have the message read or transact other business
except by unanimous consent (IV, 4787–4791). However, it is the general
custom for the Speaker to decline to entertain a unanimous-consent request
during an informal rising of the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4789, Apr.
6, 2000, p. 4778).
In a Committee of the Whole, the tellers on a

§ 331. Quarrels in division differing as to numbers,
Committee of the
Whole, and duty of the great heats and confusion arose,
Speaker in relation
thereto.
and danger of a decision by the
sword. The Speaker took the chair,
the mace was forcibly laid on the table; where-
upon the Members retiring to their places, the
Speaker told the House ‘‘he has taken the chair
without an order to bring the House into order.’’
Some excepted against it; but it was generally
approved as the only expedient to suppress the
disorder. And every Member was required,
standing up in his place, to engage that he
would proceed no further in consequence of what
had happened in the grand committee, which
was done. 3 Grey, 128.
In the House the Speaker has on several occasions taken the chair ‘‘with-
out an order to bring the House into order’’ (II, 1648–1653), but that being
accomplished the Speaker may yield to the chair that the committee may
rise in due form (II, 1349). In one instance, the Chair, having been defied
and insulted by a Member, left the chair; and, on the chair being taken
by the Speaker, he reported the facts to the House (II, 1653). In several
cases Members who have quarreled have made explanation and reconciled
their difficulties (II, 1651), or have been compelled by the House to apolo-
gize ‘‘for violating its privilege and offending its dignity’’ (II, 1648, 1650).
[160]
§ 332–§ 334
A Committee of the Whole being broken up in

§ 332. Effect of disorder, and the chair resumed by
breaking up of
Committee of the the Speaker without an order, the
Whole by disorder.
House was adjourned. The next day
the committee was considered as thereby dis-
solved, and the subject again before the House;
and it was decided in the House, without return-
ing into committee. 3 Grey, 130.
This provision is obsolete, because in the practice of the House there
is but one Committee of the Whole, which is in its nature a standing com-
mittee with calendars of business. It is never dissolved, and bills remain
on its calendar until reported in the regular manner after consideration
(IV, 4705). After restoring order, the Speaker usually leaves the chair,
thus permitting the committee later to rise in due form (II, 1349).
No previous question can be put in a com-

§ 333. Motions for mittee; nor can this committee ad-
previous question and
to adjourn not used in journ as others may; but if their
Committee of the
Whole.
business is unfinished, they rise, on
a question, the House is resumed,
and the chairman reports that the Committee of
the Whole have, according to order, had under
their consideration such a matter, and have
made progress therein; but not having had time
to go through the same, have directed him to
ask leave to sit again. Whereupon a question is
put on their having leave, and on the time the
House will again resolve itself into a committee.
Scob., 38. But if they have gone through the
matter referred to them, a member moves that
§ 334. Parliamentary the committee may rise, and the
law as to reports from
Committee of the chairman report their proceedings
Whole.
to the House; which being resolved,
the chairman rises, the Speaker resumes the
chair, the chairman informs him that the com-
[161]
§ 335
mittee have gone through the business referred

to them, and that he is ready to make report
when the House shall think proper to receive it.
If the House have time to receive it, there is
usually a cry of ‘‘now, now,’’ whereupon he
makes the report; but if it be late, the cry is ‘‘to-
morrow, to-morrow,’’ or ‘‘Monday,’’ etc., or a mo-
tion is made to that effect, and a question put
that it be received to-morrow, &c. Scob., 38.
In the practice of the House the previous question and motion to adjourn
are not admitted in Committee of the Whole; but the rules (clause 8 of
rule XVIII) provide for closing five-minute debate by motion. When the
committee rises without concluding a matter the Chair reports that it ‘‘has
come to no resolution thereon’’; but leave to sit again is not asked in the
modern practice. The permission of the House is not asked when the Chair
reports a matter concluded in committee. The report is made and received
as a matter of course, and is thereupon before the House for action. When
the House has vested control of general debate in certain Members, their
control may not be abrogated during general debate by another Member
moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121;
June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A Member yielded time in general debate may
not yield to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; May 17, 2000,
p. 8200). The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged
during debate under the five-minute rule, and may be offered during debate
on a pending amendment, except where a Member has the floor (Aug. 13,
1986, p. 21215; Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8770). The motion to rise may not include
restrictions on the amendment process or limitations on future debate on
amendments (June 6, 1990, p. 13234). The motion that the Committee
of the Whole rise is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. 8203). For a further
discussion of the motion to rise, see § 983, infra. For a point of order against
the motion to rise and report an appropriation bill to the House where
the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeds an applicable allocation of
new budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, and procedures for the Committee of the Whole in the event
that the point of order is sustained, see § 1044b, infra.
The Speaker recognizes only reports from the Committee of the Whole
§ 335. Duties of
made by the chair thereof (V, 6987), and a matter al-
Speaker and House as leged to have arisen therein but not reported may not
to reception of reports be brought to the attention of the House (VIII, 2429,
of Committee of the 2430) even on the claim that a question of privilege
Whole.
is involved (IV, 4912; V, 6987). In one instance, how-
ever, the committee reported with a bill a resolution relating to an alleged
[162]
§ 336
breach of privilege (V, 6986). When a bill is reported the Speaker must
assume that it has passed through all the stages necessary for the report
(IV, 4916). When the committee reported not only what it had done but
by whom it had been prevented from doing other things, the Speaker held
that the House might not amend the report, which stood (IV, 4909). When
an amendment is reported by the committee it may not be withdrawn,
and a question as to its validity is not considered by the Speaker (IV,
4900). When a committee, directed by order of the House to consider certain
bills, reported also certain other bills, the Speaker held that so much of
the report as related to the latter bills could be received only by unanimous
consent (IV, 4911). When a report is ruled out as in excess of the commit-
tee’s power, the accompanying bill stands recommitted (IV, 4784, 4907).
A report from a Committee of the Whole could not formerly be received
in the absence of a quorum (VI, 666; clause 7 of rule XX).
The Committee of the Whole, like any other committee, may amend a
§ 336. Amendments in
proposition either by an ordinary amendment or by a
Committee of the substitute amendment (IV, 4899), but these amend-
Whole. ments must be reported to the House for action. Amend-
ments rejected by the committee are not reported (IV,
4877). Ordinarily all amendments must be disposed of before the committee
may report (IV, 4752–4758); but sometimes a special order of business
requires a report at a specified time, in which case pending amendments
are reported (IV, 3225–3228) or not (IV, 4910) as the terms of the order
may direct. In the 98th Congress, clause 2 of rule XXI was amended to
give precedence to the motion that the Committee rise and report a general
appropriation bill at the conclusion of its reading for amendment and before
or between consideration of amendments proposing certain limitations or
retrenchments (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress further
amended clause 2 to permit only the Majority Leader or a designee to
offer that motion (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). The 105th
Congress elevated the Majority Leader’s preferential motion in clause 2
to take precedence of any motion to amend at that stage (H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 1997, p. 121). The practice of the House, based originally on a rule (IV,
4904), requires amendments to be reported from the Committee of the
Whole in their perfected forms, and this holds good even in the case of
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which may have been amend-
ed freely (IV, 4900–4903). If a Committee of the Whole amends a paragraph
and subsequently strikes the paragraph as amended, the first amendment
fails, and is not reported to the House or voted on (IV, 4898; V, 6169;
VIII, 2421, 2426), and when the Committee of the Whole adopts two amend-
ments that are subsequently deleted by an amendment striking and insert-
ing new text, only the latter amendment is reported to the House (June
20, 1967, p. 16497). Where two amendments proposing inconsistent mo-
tions to strike and insert a pending section are considered as separate
first degree amendments (not one as a substitute for the other) before
either is finally disposed of under a special procedure permitting the Chair
[163]
§ 337
to postpone requests for a recorded vote, the Chair’s order of voting on

the matter as unfinished business determines which amendment (if both
were adopted) would be reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098–
107). Normally, if the Committee of the Whole perfects a bill by adopting
certain amendments and then adopts an amendment striking all after sec-
tion one of the bill and inserting a new text, only the bill, as amended
by the motion to strike and insert, is reported to the House; but when
the bill is being considered under a special rule permitting a separate vote
in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or the committee substitute, all amendments adopted
in the Committee are reported to the House regardless of their consistency
(May 26, 1960, pp. 11302–04). Where a separate vote is demanded in this
type of situation in the House only on an amendment striking a section
of a committee substitute, but not on perfecting amendments that have
been previously adopted in Committee of the Whole to that section, rejec-
tion in the House of the motion to strike the section results in a vote
on the committee substitute in its original form and not as perfected, be-
cause the perfecting amendments have been displaced in the Committee
of the Whole and have not been revived on a separate vote in the House
(Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 13, 1977, pp. 33622–24). But if the Committee of
the Whole reports a bill to the House with an adopted amendment in the
nature of a substitute and the special order of business in question does
not provide for separate House votes on amendments thereto, a separate
vote may not be demanded on an amendment to such amendment, because
only one amendment in its perfected form has been reported back to the
House (Nov. 17, 1983, p. 33463).
All amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the Whole
§ 337. Committee of
stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the
the Whole House (IV, 4871) in the order in which they are re-
amendments in the ported, although they may be inconsistent, one with
House. another (IV, 4881, 4882), and are subject to amendment
in the House unless the previous question is ordered
(VIII, 2419). Two amendments being reported as distinct were considered
independently, although apparently one was a proviso attaching to the
other (IV, 4905); and an entire and distinct amendment may not be divided,
but must be voted on by the House as a whole (IV, 4883–4892; VIII, 2426).
It is a frequent practice for the House by unanimous consent to act at
once on all the amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the
Whole, but it is the right of any Member to demand a separate vote on
any amendment (IV, 4893, 4894; VIII, 2419) unless a special rule mandates
that sundry amendments be put en gros (June 24, 2009, p. l). Where
a special rule permits en bloc consideration of certain amendments in Com-
mittee of the Whole, those amendments if reported back to the House may
also be considered en bloc for a separate vote in the House on demand
of any Member (Speaker O’Neill, Sept. 7, 1978, p. 28425). A Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to a committee
[164]
§ 338
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of

the Whole where the bill is being considered under a special rule permitting
separate votes in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee amendment (Sept. 30,
1971, p. 34337), but where a special rule ‘‘self-executes’’ an amendment
as a modification of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be
considered as an original bill, that modification is not separately voted
on upon demand in the House (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 2043). A
Member may withdraw a demand for a separate vote in the House on
an amendment reported from Committee of the Whole before the Speaker’s
putting the question thereon, and unanimous consent is not required (May
28, 1987, p. 14030). When demand is made for separate votes in the House
on several amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, the amend-
ments are voted on in the House in the order in which they appear in
the bill (July 24, 1968, pp. 23093–95; May 28, 1987, p. 14030; June 11,
1997, p. 10654), except when amendments have been considered under
a special rule prescribing the order for their consideration where the bill
is considered as read, in which case they are voted on upon demand in
the order in which considered in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 11, 1993,
p. 4733; Mar. 25, 1993, pp. 6358, 6359). For former automatic reconsider-
ation in the House of amendments if the votes of Delegates and the Resi-
dent Commissioner were decisive, see § 985, infra.
Depending on the will of the House as expressed on the question of order-
ing the previous question (IV, 4895; V, 5794; VIII, 2419), when a bill is
reported with amendments, it is in order to submit additional amendments
after disposition of the committee amendments (IV, 4872–4876). However,
in modern practice the opportunity to submit amendments is normally
foreclosed by the ordering of the previous question under a special rule.
The fact that a proposition has been rejected by the Committee of the
Whole does not prevent it from being offered as an amendment when the
subject comes up in the House (IV, 4878–4880; VIII, 2700). A substitute
amendment may be offered to a bill reported from committee, and then
the previous question may be ordered on the substitute, on all other amend-
ments, and on the bill to final passage (V, 5472). An amendment in the
nature of a substitute reported from committee is treated like any other
amendment (V, 5341), and if the House rejects the substitute the original
bill without amendment is before the House (VIII, 2426).
Where a series of bills are reported from Committee of the Whole, the
§ 338. Bills from
House considers them in the order in which they are
Committee of the reported (IV, 4869, 4870; VIII, 2417). A proposition re-
Whole in the House. ported for action has precedence over an independent
resolution on the same subject offered by a Member
from the floor (V, 6986), and where a bill and a resolution relating to an
alleged breach of privilege were reported together the question was put
first on the bill (V, 6986). A bill read in full and considered in Committee
of the Whole (IV, 3409, 3410), or presumed to have been so read (IV, 4916),
[165]
§ 339–§ 341
is not read in full again in the House when reported and acted on. The
chair of the Committee of the Whole who reports a bill does not become
entitled to prior recognition for debate in the House (II, 1453); but on an
adverse report an opponent is recognized to offer a motion for disposition
of the bill (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430), or for debate (VII, 2629). The recommenda-
tion of the committee being before the House, the motion to carry out the
recommendation is usually considered as pending without being offered
from the floor (IV, 4896), but when a bill was reported with a recommenda-
tion that it lie on the table, a question was raised as to whether or not
this motion, which prevents debate, should be considered as pending (IV,
4897). The House considers an amendment reported from the Committee
of the Whole to the preamble of a Senate joint resolution following disposi-
tion of amendments to the text and pending third reading (May 25, 1993,
pp. 11036, 11037).
A motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the consideration
§ 339. Discharge of the
of a matter committed to it is not privileged as against
Committee of the a demand for the regular order (IV, 4917). When the
Whole. committee is discharged from consideration of a bill the
House, in lieu of the report of the chair, accepts the
minutes of the Clerk as evidence of amendments agreed to (IV, 4922).
§ 340. Application of In other things the rules or pro-

House rules in
Committee of the
ceedings are to be the same as in
Whole. the House. Scob., 39.
The House provides by rule (clause 11 of rule XVIII) that the rules of
proceeding in the House shall apply in Committee of the Whole so far
as they may be applicable.
SEC. XIII—EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Common fame is a good ground for the House

§ 341. Common fame as to proceed by inquiry, and even to
ground for
investigation. accusation. Resolution House of
Commons, 1 Car., 1, 1625; Rush, L.
Parl., 115; Grey, 16–22, 92; 8 Grey, 21, 23, 27,
45.
In the House common fame has been held sufficient to justify procedure
for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it was stated on the authority
of common rumor that a Member had been menaced (III, 2678). The House
also has voted to investigate with a view to impeachment on the basis
of common fame, as in the cases of Judges Chase (III, 2342), Humphreys
(III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).
[166]
§ 342–§ 343
Witnesses are not to be produced

§ 342. The production
but where the House has previously

of witnesses at an
inquiry.
instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102,
nor then are orders for their attendance given
blank. 3 Grey, 51.
In the House witnesses are summoned in pursuance and by virtue of
the authority conferred on a committee by the House to send for persons
and papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules give to certain
committees the authority to investigate without securing special permis-
sion, authority must be obtained before the production of testimony may
be compelled (IV, 4316). The rules require that subpoenas issued by order
of the House be signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule I) and attested
and sealed by the Clerk (clause 2 of rule II). However, in clause 2(m) of
rule XI the House has authorized any committee or subcommittee to issue
a subpoena when authorized by a majority of the members of the committee
or subcommittee voting, a majority being present. A committee may also
delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chair of a full committee.
Authorized subpoenas are signed by the chair of the committee or by any
other member designated by the committee. Sometimes the House author-
izes issue of subpoenas during a recess of Congress and empowers the
Speaker to sign them (III, 1806), and in one case the two Houses, by concur-
rent resolution, empowered the Vice President and Speaker to sign during
a recess (III, 1763). See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Barry
v. U.S. ex. rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Sinclair v. United States,
279 U.S. 263 (1929). Under section 2954 of title 5, United States Code,
an executive agency, if so requested by the Committee on Government
Operations (now Oversight and Government Reform), or any seven mem-
bers thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any
matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.
When any person is examined before a com-

mittee or at the bar of the House,
§ 343. Examination of
witnesses in the
House and in any Member wishing to ask the per-
committee.
son a question must address it to
the Speaker or chairman, who repeats the ques-
tion to the person, or says to him, ‘‘You hear the
question—answer it.’’ But if the propriety of the
question be objected to, the Speaker directs the
witness, counsel, and parties to withdraw; for no
question can be moved or put or debated while
[167]
§ 344
they are there. 2 Hats., 108. Sometimes the

questions are previously settled in writing before
the witness enters. Ib., 106, 107; 8 Grey, 64. The
questions asked must be entered in the Journal.
3 Grey, 81. But the testimony given in answer
before the House is never written down; but be-
fore a committee, it must be, for the information
of the House, who are not present to hear it. 7
Grey, 52, 334.
The Committee of the Whole of the House was charged with an investiga-
tion in 1792, but the procedure was wholly exceptional (III, 1804), although
a statute still empowers the chair of the Committee of the Whole, as well
as the Speaker, chairs of select or standing committees, and Members to
administer oaths to witnesses (2 U.S.C. 191; III, 1769). Most inquiries,
in the modern practice, are conducted by select or standing committees,
and these in each case determine how they will conduct examinations (III,
1773, 1775). Clause 2(k) of rule XI, contains provisions governing certain
procedures at hearings by committees (§ 803, infra). In one case a com-
mittee permitted a Member of the House not of the committee to examine
a witness (III, 2403). Usually these investigations are reported steno-
graphically, thus making the questions and answers of record for report
to the House. To sustain a conviction of perjury, a quorum of a committee
must be in attendance when the testimony is given. Christoffel v. United
States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949). Certain criminal statutes make it a felony to
give perjurious testimony before a congressional committee (18 U.S.C.
1621), to intimidate witnesses before committees (18 U.S.C. 1505), or to
make false statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the execu-
tive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States
(18 U.S.C. 1001).
Another provision of the Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 6005) provides
for ‘‘use’’ immunity for certain witnesses before either House or committees
thereof.
The House, in its earlier years, arraigned and tried at its bar persons,
§ 344. Earlier and later
not Members, charged with violation of its privileges,
practice as to as in the cases of Randall, Whitney (II, 1599–1603),
inquiries at the bar of Anderson (II, 1606), and Houston (II, 1616); but in the
the House. case of Woods, charged with breach of privilege in 1870
(II, 1626–1628), the respondent was arraigned before
the House, but was heard in his defense by counsel and witnesses before
a standing committee. At the conclusion of that investigation the respond-
ent was brought to the bar of the House while the House voted his punish-
ment (II, 1628). The House also has arraigned at its bar contumacious
[168]
§ 345–§ 347
witnesses before taking steps to punish by its own action or through the
courts (III, 1685). In examinations at its bar the House has adopted forms
of procedure as to questions (II, 1633, 1768), providing that they be asked
through the Speaker (II, 1602, 1606) or by a committee (II, 1617; III, 1668).
And the questions to be asked have been drawn up by a committee, even
when put by the Speaker (II, 1633). In the earlier practice the answer
of a witness at the bar was not written down (IV, 2874); but in the later
practice the answers appear in the journal (III, 1668). The person at the
bar withdraws while the House passes on an incidental question (II, 1633;
III, 1768). See McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Barry v. U.S.
ex. rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S.
125 (1935).
If either House have occasion for the presence

§ 345. Procuring of a person in custody of the other,
attendance of a
witness in custody of they ask the other their leave that
the other House.
he may be brought up to them in
custody. 3 Hats., 52.
A Member, in his place, gives information to
§ 346. Members as the House of what he knows of any
witnesses.
matter under hearing at the bar.
Jour. H. of C., Jan. 22, 1744–5.
At an examination at the bar of the House in 1795 both the written
information given by Members and their verbal testimony were required
to be under oath (II, 1602). In a case not of actual examination at the
bar, but wherein the House was deliberating on a proposition to order
investigation, it demanded by resolution that certain Members produce
papers and information (III, 1726, 1811). Members often give testimony
before committees of investigation, and in at least one case the Speaker
has thus appeared (III, 1776). But in a case wherein a committee sum-
moned a Member to testify as to a statement made by him in debate he
protested that it was an invasion of his constitutional privilege (III, 1777,
1778; see also H. Rept. 67–1372, and Jan. 25, 1923, pp. 2415–23). In one
instance the chair of an investigating committee administered the oath
to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an inquiry preliminary
to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers to examine Members,
and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose (III, 2033).
Either House may request, but not command,

§ 347. Method of the attendance of a Member of the
obtaining testimony of
a Member of the other other. They are to make the request
House.
by message of the other House, and
[169]
§ 348
to express clearly the purpose of attendance,

that no improper subject of examination may be
tendered to him. The House then gives leave to
the Member to attend, if he choose it; waiting
first to know from the Member himself whether
he chooses to attend, till which they do not take
the message into consideration. But when the
peers are sitting as a court of criminal judica-
ture, they may order attendance, unless where it
be a case of impeachment by the Commons.
There it is to be a request. 3 Hats., 17; 9 Grey,
306, 406; 10 Grey, 133.
The House and the Senate have observed this rule; but it does not appear
that they have always made public ascertainment of the willingness of
the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one case the Senate laid aside
pending business in order to comply with the request of the House (III,
1791). In several instances House committees, after their invitations to
Senators to appear and testify had been disregarded, have issued sub-
poenas. In such cases the Senators have either disregarded the subpoenas,
refused to obey them, or have appeared under protest (III, 1792, 1793).
In one case, after a Senator had neglected to respond either to an invitation
or a subpoena the House requested of the Senate his attendance and the
Senate disregarded the request (III, 1794). Where Senators have responded
to invitations of House committees, their testimony has been taken without
obtaining consent of the Senate (III, 1793, 1795, footnote).
Counsel are to be heard only on private, not

§ 348. Admission of on public, bills and on such points
counsel.
of law only as the House shall di-
rect. 10 Grey, 61.
In 1804 the House admitted the counsel of certain corporations to address
the House on pending matters of legislation (V, 7298), and in 1806 voted
that a claimant might be heard at the bar (V, 7299); but in 1808, after
consideration, the House by a large majority declined to follow again the
precedent of 1804 (V, 7300). In early years counsel in election cases were
heard at the bar at the discretion of the House (I, 657, 709, 757, 765);
but in 1836, after full discussion, the practice was abandoned (I, 660),
and, with one exception in 1841 (I, 659), has not been revived, even for
the case of a contestant who could not speak the English language (I, 661).
Counsel appear before committees in election cases, however. Where wit-
[170]
§ 349
nesses and others have been arraigned at the bar of the House for contempt,
the House has usually permitted counsel (II, 1601, 1616; III, 1667), some-
times under conditions (II, 1604, 1616); but in a few cases has declined
the request (II, 1608; III, 1666, footnote). In investigations before commit-
tees counsel usually have been admitted (III, 1741, 1846, 1847), sometimes
even to assist a witness (III, 1772), and clause 2(k)(3) of rule XI now pro-
vides that witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel
for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights
(§ 803, infra). In examinations preliminary to impeachment counsel usually
have been admitted (III, 1736, 2470, 2516) unless in cases wherein such
proceedings were ex parte. During impeachment investigations against
President Nixon and President Clinton, the Committee on the Judiciary
admitted counsel to the President to be present, to make presentations
and to examine witnesses during investigatory hearings (H. Rept. 93–1305,
Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept. 105–830, Dec. 16, 1998, p. 27819).
At one time the House required all counsel or agents representing per-
sons or corporations before committees to be registered with the Clerk
(III, 1771). The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires all lobbyists to
register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate (2
U.S.C. 1603).
SEC. XIV—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS
The Speaker is not precisely bound to any

rules as to what bills or other mat-
§ 349. Advantages of
an order of business.
ter shall be first taken up; but it is
left to his own discretion, unless the House on a
question decide to take up a particular subject.
Hakew., 136.
A settled order of business is, however, nec-
essary for the government of the presiding per-
son, and to restrain individual Members from
calling up favorite measures, or matters under
their special patronage, out of their just turn. It
is useful also for directing the discretion of the
House, when they are moved to take up a par-
ticular matter, to the prejudice of others, having
[171]
§ 350
priority of right to their attention in the general

order of business.
* * * * *
In this way we do not waste our time in debat-
ing what shall be taken up. We do one thing at
a time; follow up a subject while it is fresh, and
till it is done with; clear the House of business
gradatim as it is brought on, and prevent, to a
certain degree, its immense accumulation to-
ward the close of the session.
Jefferson gave as a part of his comment on the law of Parliament the
order of business in the Senate in his time. Both in the House and Senate
the order of business has been changed to meet the needs of the times.
The order of business now followed in the House is established by rule
XIV; and this rule, with the rules supplemental thereto, take away to a
very large extent the discretion exercised by the Speaker under the par-
liamentary law.
In the House before committees are appointed it is in order to offer a
bill or resolution for consideration not previously considered by a committee
(VII, 2103). In the 73d Congress, the House passed before the adoption
of rules and election of committees a bill of major importance (providing
relief in the existing national emergency in banking), following a message
from the President recommending its immediate passage (Mar. 9, 1933,
pp. 75–84).
Arrangement, however, can only take hold of

§ 350. Conditions of matters in possession of the House.
the old and the
modern orders of New matter may be moved at any
business.
time when no question is before the
House. Such are original motions and reports on
bills. Such are bills from the other House, which
are received at all times, and receive their first
reading as soon as the question then before the
House is disposed of; and bills brought in on
leave, which are read first whenever presented.
So messages from the other House respecting
amendments to bills are taken up as soon as the
[172]
§ 351–§ 352
House is clear of a question, unless they require

to be printed, for better consideration. Orders of
the day may be called for, even when another
question is before the House.
In Jefferson’s time the principles of this comment would have applied
to both House and Senate; but in the House the order of business may
be interrupted at the will of the majority only by certain specified matters
(see annotations following rule XIV). For matters not thus specified, inter-
ruption of the order takes place only by unanimous consent. For a discus-
sion of the Speaker’s policy of conferring recognition for such unanimous-
consent requests, see § 956, infra.
SEC. XV—ORDER
* * * * *
In Parliament, ‘‘instances make order,’’ per
§ 351. Precedent in Speaker Onslow. 2 Hats., 141. But
Parliament and the
House. what is done only by one Par-
liament, cannot be called custom of
Parliament, by Prynne. 1 Grey, 52.
In the House the Clerk is required to note all questions of order and
the decisions thereon and print the record thereof as an appendix to the
Journal (clause 2 of rule II). The Parliamentarian has the responsibility
for compiling and updating the precedents (2 U.S.C. 28). The Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974 gave the Speaker the responsibility to prepare
an updated compilation of such precedents every two years (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The Speaker feels constrained in rulings
to give precedent its proper influence (II, 1317), because the advantage
of such a course is undeniable (IV, 4045). But decisions of the Speakers
on questions of order are not like judgments of courts that conclude the
rights of parties, but may be reexamined and reversed (IV, 4637), except
on discretionary matters of recognition (II, 1425). It is rare, however, that
such a reversal occurs.
SEC. XVI—ORDER RESPECTING PAPERS
The Clerk is to let no journals, records, ac-

§ 352. Safekeeping of counts, or papers be taken from the
papers and integrity
of bills. table or out of his custody. 2 Hats.,
193, 194.
[173]
§ 353–§ 354
Mr. Prynne, having at a Committee of the

Whole amended a mistake in a bill without
order or knowledge of the committee, was rep-
rimanded. 1 Chand., 77.
A bill being missing, the House resolved that
a protestation should be made and subscribed by
the members ‘‘before Almighty God, and this
honorable House, that neither myself, nor any
other to my knowledge, have taken away, or do
at this present conceal a bill entitled,’’ &c. 5
Grey, 202.
After a bill is engrossed, it is put into the
Speaker’s hands, and he is not to let any one
have it to look into. Town, col. 209.
In the House an alleged improper alteration of a bill was presented as
a question of privilege and examined by a select committee. It being
ascertained that the alteration was made to correct a clerical error, the
committee reported that it was ‘‘highly censurable in any Member or officer
of the House to make any change, even the most unimportant, in any
bill or resolution which has received the sanction of this body’’ (III, 2598).
Alleged abuse of power in the processing and enrollment of bills has formed
the basis of questions of privilege (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1948; May 22, 2008,
p. l). Although engrossing papers must be at the desk, additional copies
of a pending measure are not required (June 26, 2009, p. l). The Clerk
signs engrossments; the Speaker signs enrollments (1 U.S.C. 106).
SEC. XVII—ORDER IN DEBATE
§ 353. Decorum of When the Speaker is seated in

Members as to sitting
in their places.
his chair, every member is to sit in
his place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.
In the House the decorum of Members is regulated by rule XVII; and
this provision of the parliamentary law is practically obsolete.
When any Member means to speak, he is to

§ 354. Procedure of the stand up in his place, uncovered,
Member in seeking
recognition. and to address himself, not to the
House, or any particular Member,
[174]
§ 355–§ 356
but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name,

that the House may take notice who it is that
speaks. Scob., 6; D’Ewes, 487, col. 1; 2 Hats., 77;
4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are
indisposed may be indulged to speak sitting. 2
Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey, 143.
This provision has been superseded by clause 1 of rule XVII. The Speak-
er, moreover, calls the Member, not by name, but as ‘‘the gentleman or
gentlewoman from ll,’’ (naming the State). As long ago as 1832, at least,
a Member was not required to rise from his own particular seat because
seats are no longer assigned (V, 4979, footnote).
§ 355. Conditions When a Member stands up to

under which a
Member’s right to the
speak, no question is to be put, but
floor is subjected to he is to be heard unless the House
the will of the House.
overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey,
6, 143.
Except as provided in clause 4 of rule XVII, no question is put as to
the right of a Member to the floor.
If two or more rise to speak nearly together,

§ 356. The the Speaker determines who was
parliamentary law as
to recognition by the first up, and calls him by name,
Speaker.
whereupon he proceeds, unless he
voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other.
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in
the Speaker’s decision, in which case the ques-
tion is put, ‘‘which Member was first up?’’ 2
Hats., 76; Scob., 7; D’Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2.
In the Senate of the United States the Presi-
dent’s decision is without appeal.
In the House recognition by the Chair is governed by clause 2 of rule
XVII and the practice thereunder. There has been no appeal from a decision
by the Speaker on a question of recognition since 1881, on which occasion
Speaker Randall stated that the power of recognition is ‘‘just as absolute
in the Chair as the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States
is absolute as to the interpretation of the law’’ (II, 1425–1428), and in
the later practice no appeal is permitted (VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762).
[175]
§ 357–§ 358
No man may speak more than once on the

§ 357. Right of the same bill on the same day; or even
Member to be heard a
second time. on another day, if the debate be ad-
journed. But if it be read more than
once in the same day, he may speak once at
every reading. Co., 12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob.,
58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion does
not give a right to be heard a second time.
Smyth’s Comw. L., 2, c. 3; Arcan, Parl., 17.
But he may be permitted to speak again to
clear a matter of fact, 3 Grey, 357, 416; or mere-
ly to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some mate-
rial part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner
or words of the question, keeping himself to that
only, and not traveling into the merits of it, Me-
morials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the
House, if they be transgressed, keeping within
that line, and not falling into the matter itself.
Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.
The House has modified the parliamentary law as to a Member’s right
to speak a second time by clause 3 of rule XVII and by permitting a Member
controlling time in debate to yield to another more than once (Apr. 5, 2000,
p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). In ordinary practice rule XVII is not
rigidly enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making such expla-
nations as are contemplated by the parliamentary law.
But if the Speaker rise to speak, the Member

§ 358. Participation of standing up ought to sit down, that
the Speaker in debate.
he may be first heard. Town., col.
205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in Hakew., 30, 31.
Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right
speak to matters of order, and be first heard, he
is restrained from speaking on any other subject,
except where the House have occasion for facts
[176]
§ 359–§ 360
within his knowledge; then he may, with their

leave, state the matter of fact. 3 Grey, 38.
This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House only with
regard to the conduct of the Speaker when in the chair. In several instances
the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a statement from
the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been criticized (II,
1369), in a case wherein there had been unusual occurrences in the joint
session to count the electoral vote (II, 1372), and in a matter relating to
a contest for the seat of the Speaker as a Member (II, 1360). In rare in-
stances the Speaker has made brief explanations from the chair without
asking the assent of the House (II, 1373, 1374). Speakers have called others
to the chair and participated in debate, usually without asking consent
of the House (II, 1360, 1367, footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one
case a Speaker on the floor debated a point of order that the Speaker
pro tempore was to decide (V, 6097). In rare instances Speakers have left
the chair to make motions on the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may
participate in debate in Committee of the Whole, although the privilege
was rarely exercised in early practice (II, 1367, footnote).
No one is to speak impertinently or beside the

question, superfluous, or tediously.
§ 359. Impertinent,
superfluous, or
Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168;
tedious speaking.
Hale Parl., 133.

The House, by clause 1 of rule XVII, provides that remarks must be
confined to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor practice
has the House suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking, its hour rule
(clause 2 of rule XVII) being a sufficient safeguard in this respect.
No person is to use indecent language against

§ 360. Language the proceedings of the House; no
reflecting on the
House. prior determination of which is to
be reflected on by any Member, un-
less he means to conclude with a motion to re-
scind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170; Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol.
42. But while a proposition under consideration
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported
by a committee, reflections on it are no reflec-
tions on the House. 9 Grey, 508.
In the practice of the House it has been held out of order in debate
to cast reflections on either the House or its membership or its decisions,
[177]
§ 361
whether present or past (V, 5132–5138). A Member who had used offensive
words against the character of the House, and who declined to explain,
was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching the loyalty of a portion of the
membership have also been ruled out (V, 5139). Where a Member reiter-
ated on the floor certain published charges against the House, action was
taken, although other business had intervened, the question being consid-
ered one of privilege (III, 2637). It has been held inappropriate and not
in order in debate to refer to the proceedings of a committee except such
as have been formally reported to the House (V, 5080–5083; VIII, 2269,
2485–2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but this rule does not apply
to the proceedings of a committee of a previous Congress (Feb. 2, 1914,
p. 2782), and the rationale for this limitation on debate is in part obsolete
under the modern practice of the House insofar as the doctrine is applied
to open committee meetings and hearings.
No person, in speaking, is to mention a Mem-

ber then present by his name, but
§ 361. Personalities in
debate forbidden.
to describe him by his seat in the
House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of
the question, &c., Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth’s
Comw., L. 2, c. 3; nor to digress from the matter
to fall upon the person, Scob., 31; Hale Parl.,
133; 2 Hats., 166, by speaking reviling, nipping,
or unmannerly words against a particular Mem-
ber. Smyth’s Comw., L. 2, c. 3. * * *
In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to an-
other Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address
a Member in the second person (V, 5140–5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529). The
proper reference to another Member is ‘‘the gentleman or gentlewoman
from ll,’’ (naming the Member’s State) (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July
21, 1982, p. 17314). A mere reference to a Member’s voting record does
not form a basis for a point of order against those remarks (June 13, 2002,
p. 10226, p. 10232).
By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XVII), as well as by parliamentary
law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163, 5169), whether
against the Member in the Member’s capacity as Representative or other-
wise (V, 5152, 5153), even if the references may be relevant to the pending
question (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778). The House has censured a Member
for gross personalities (II, 1251). The Chair may intervene to prevent im-
proper references if it is evident that a particular Member is being de-
scribed (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077).
The Chair does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a Member
in debate (Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926; Sept. 26, 2008, p. l). Although accusing
[178]
§ 361
another Member of deceit engages in personality, merely accusing another

Member of making a mistake does not (Oct. 26, 2000, p. 24921).
Clause 1 of rule XVII has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an
identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g.,
stealing an election or obstructing justice) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898; Speaker
Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016; May 19, 1998, p. 9738; July 15, 2004,
p. 15859); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the political tactics
of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p. 14056); (3) referring
to a particular Member of the House in a derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989,
p. 27077); (4) characterizing a Member as ‘‘the most impolite Member’’
(June 27, 1996, p. 15915) or ‘‘mean-spirited’’ (May 13, 1992, p. 11235);
(5) questioning the integrity of a Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19170); (6)
denunciating the spirit in which a Member had spoken (V, 6981); (7) using
a Member’s surname as though an adjective for a word of ridicule (June
13, 2002, p. 10232; May 13, 2008, p. l); (8) questioning the decency of
another Member (Mar. 21, 2007, p. 7074).
A distinction has been drawn between general language, which charac-
terizes a measure or the political motivations behind a measure, and per-
sonalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). Although remarks in debate may not in-
clude personal attacks against a Member or an identifiable group of Mem-
bers, they may address political motivations for legislative positions (Jan.
24, 1995, p. 2214; Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33832;
June 13, 1996, p. 14043; July 16, 2008, p. l). For example, references
to ‘‘down-in-the-dirt gutter politics’’ and ‘‘you people are going to pay’’ were
held not to be personal references (Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32388). Similarly,
characterizing a pending measure as a ‘‘patently petty political terrorist
tactic’’ was held in order as a reference to the pending measure rather
than to the motive or character of the measure’s proponent (Nov. 9, 1995,
p. 31413). The Chair also has held in order a general reference that ‘‘big
donors’’ receive ‘‘access to leadership power and decisions’’ because the ref-
erence did not identify a specific Member as engaging in an improper quid
pro quo (Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926). A general statement seeming to invoke
racial stereotypes but not in a context so inflammatory as to constitute
a breach of decorum, was held not unparliamentary (Apr. 9, 2003, p. 9005
(sustained by tabling of appeal)). Likewise, a general statement linking
politics with armed conflict in an impersonal way was held not to breach
decorum (Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27578).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of another
Member that would be improper if spoken in the Member’s own words
(May 25, 1995, pp. 14436, 14437; Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22898). Thus, words
in a telegram read in debate that repudiated the ‘‘lies and half-truths’’
of a House committee report were ruled out of order as reflecting on the
integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 7065), and unparliamen-
tary references in debate to newspaper accounts used in support of a Mem-
ber’s personal criticism of another Member were similarly ruled out of
order (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 3346).
[179]
§ 361
A Member should refrain from references in debate to the official conduct

of a Member if such conduct is not the subject then pending before the
House by way of either a report of the Committee on Ethics or another
question of the privileges of the House (see, e.g., July 24, 1990, p. 18917;
Mar. 19, 1992, p. 6078; May 25, 1995, pp. 14434–37; Sept. 19, 1995, pp.
25454, 25455; Apr. 27, 2005, p. 8049); and, although such references are
ordinarily enforced by the Chair in response to a point of order, the Chair
may take the initiative in order to maintain proper decorum (Apr. 1, 1992,
p. 7899; June 17, 2004, p. 12748). This stricture also precludes a Member
from reciting news articles discussing a Member’s conduct (Sept. 24, 1996,
p. 24318), reciting the content of a previously tabled resolution raising
a question of the privileges of the House (Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33853; Sept.
19, 1996, p. 23855), or even referring to a Member’s conduct by mere insinu-
ation (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22899). Notice of an intention to offer a resolution
as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX does not render
a resolution ‘‘pending’’ and thereby permit references to conduct of a Mem-
ber proposed to be addressed therein (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23811).
The stricture against references to a Member’s conduct not then pending
before the House applies to the conduct of all sitting Members (Apr. 1,
1992, p. 7899), including conduct that has previously been resolved by
the Committee on Ethics or the House (Sept. 24, 1996, pp. 24483, 24485;
Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5831). This stricture does not apply to the conduct of
a former Member, provided the reference is not made in an attempt to
compare the conduct of a former Member with the conduct of a sitting
Member (Sept. 20, 1995, pp. 25825, 25826; Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22900,
22901).
Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
action against a Member may necessarily involve personalities. However,
clause 1 of rule XVII still prohibits the use of language that is personally
abusive (see, e.g., July 31, 1979, p. 21584; Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393) and the
Chair may take the initiative to prevent violations of the rule (July 24,
2002, p. 14300). Furthermore, during the actual pendency of such a resolu-
tion, a Member may discuss a prior case reported to the House by the
Committee on Ethics for the purpose of comparing the severity of the sanc-
tion recommended in that case with the severity of the sanction rec-
ommended in the pending case, provided that the Member does not iden-
tify, or discuss the details of the past conduct of, a sitting Member (Dec.
18, 1987, p. 36271).
In addition to the prohibition against addressing a Member’s conduct
when it is not actually pending before the House, the Speaker has advised
that Members should refrain from references in debate (1) to the motiva-
tions of a Member who filed a complaint before the Committee on Stand-
ards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (June 15, 1988, p. 14623; July 6,
1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989, p. 7735; Nov. 3, 1989,
p. 27077); (2) to personal criticism of a member of the committee (Apr.
1, 1992, p. 7899; Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6715; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23812; Sept.
[180]
§ 362–§ 363
24, 1996, p. 24317); (3) to an investigation undertaken by the committee,

including suggestion of a course of action (Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6715; Sept.
24, 1996, p. 24317; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778) or advocacy of an interim
status report by the committee (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 28, 1996,
p. 25778).
For precedents applicable to references in debate to the President, see
§ 370, infra, or Members of the Senate, see § 371, infra.
Complaint of the conduct of the Speaker should be presented directly
for the action of the House and not by way of debate
§ 362. Criticism of the
Speaker. on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a Member
used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a
subsequent day, and after other business had intervened, censured the
offender (II, 1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the
chair while action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI,
565). In the 104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order
to speak disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for
timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 552; Jan. 19, 1995, p.
1599). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of the Speaker
(Jan. 18, 1995, p. 1441; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1601). For example, it is not
in order to charge dishonesty or disregard of the rules (July 11, 1985,
p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by accusing him of ‘‘kowtowing’’ to
persons who would desecrate the flag (June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to refer
to him as a ‘‘crybaby’’ (Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33394), or to refer to official conduct
of the Speaker that has previously been resolved by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) or the House (Apr. 17, 1997,
p. 5831). The Chair may take the initiative to admonish Members for ref-
erences in debate that disparage the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p. 14056;
Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6077; May 13, 2008, p. l). Debate on a resolution author-
izing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules may not engage
in personality by discussing the official conduct of the Speaker, even if
possibly relevant to the question of empowerment of the Speaker (Sept.
24, 1996, p. 24485).
* * * The consequences of a measure may be

§ 363. Motives of reprobated in strong terms; but to
Members not to be
arraigned. arraign the motives of those who
propose to advocate it is a person-
ality, and against order. Qui digreditur a mate-
ria ad personam, Mr. Speaker ought to suppress.
Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.
The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147–
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and Speakers have intervened to prevent
it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations (V, 5161,
[181]
§ 364
5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but not personal,
motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214; Mar. 8, 1995,
pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p. 14043) or for
committee membership (July 10, 1995, pp. 18257–59). Accusing another
Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July 24, 1979, p. 20380;
Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9675), and characterizing the motivation of a Member
in offering an amendment as deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of
order (June 12, 1979, p. 11461). A statement in debate that an amendment
could only be demagogic or racist because only demagoguery or racism
impelled such an amendment was ruled out of order as impugning the
motives of the Member offering the amendment (Dec. 3, 1973, pp. 41270,
41271). However, debate characterizing a pending measure as a ‘‘patently
petty political terrorist tactic’’ was held in order as directed at the pending
measure rather than the motive or the character of its proponent (Nov.
9, 1995, p. 31413). Although in debate the assertion of one Member may
be declared untrue by another, in so doing an intentional misrepresentation
must not be implied (V, 5157–5160), and if stated or implied is censurable
(II, 1305). A Member in debate having declared the words of another ‘‘a
base lie,’’ censure was inflicted by the House on the offender (II, 1249).
No one is to disturb another in his speech by

hissing, coughing, spitting, 6 Grey,
§ 364. Disorder and
interruptions during
debate. 322; Scob., 8; D’Ewes, 332, col. 1,
640, col. 2, speaking or whispering
to another, Scob., 6; D’Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor
stand up to interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem.
in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between the Speaker
and the speaking Member, nor to go across the
House, Scob., 6, or to walk up and down it, or
to take books or papers from the table, or write
there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.
The House has, by clause 5 of rule XVII, prescribed certain rules of
decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the parliamentary law,
but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In one respect, however,
the practice of the House differs from the apparent intent of the parliamen-
tary law. In the House a Member may interrupt by addressing the Chair
for permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VIII, 2465); but it is
entirely within the discretion of the Member occupying the floor to deter-
mine when and by whom to be interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; VIII, 2463,
2465). There is no rule of the House requiring a Member having the floor
to yield to another Member referred to during debate (Aug. 2, 1984, p.
22241). A Member may ask another to yield from any microphone in the
[182]
§ 365–§ 366
Chamber, including those in the well, so long as not crossing between the
Member having the floor and the Chair (June 5, 1998, p. 11170). The Chair
may take the initiative in preserving order when a Member declining to
yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another Member, may order
that the interrupting Member’s remarks not appear in the Record (July
26, 1984, p. 21247), and may admonish Members not to converse with
a Member attempting to address the House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), be-
cause it is not in order to engage in disruption while another is delivering
remarks in debate (June 27, 1996, p. 15915). On the opening day of the
103d Congress, during the customary announcement of policies with re-
spect to particular aspects of the legislative process, the Chair elaborated
on the rules of order in debate with a general statement concerning deco-
rum in the House (Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105). Under this provision, the Chair
may require a line of Members waiting to sign a discharge petition to
proceed to the rostrum from the far right-hand aisle and require the line
not to stand between the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct.
24, 1997, p. 23293). Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House
(May 21, 1998, p. 10282). For further discussion of interruptions in debate,
see § 946, infra.
Nevertheless, if a Member finds that it is not

the inclination of the House to hear
method of silencing a
him, and that by conversation or
tedious Member.
any other noise they endeavor to

drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to
submit to the pleasure of the House, and sit
down; for it scarcely ever happens that they are
guilty of this piece of ill manners without suffi-
cient reason, or inattention to a Member who
says anything worth their hearing. 2 Hats., 77,
78.
In the House, where the previous question and hour rule of debate have
been used for many years, the parliamentary method of suppressing a tedi-
ous Member has never been imported into the practice (V, 5445).
If repeated calls do not produce order, the

§ 366. The Speaker may call by his name any
to naming a Member obstinately persisting in ir-
disorderly Member.
regularity; whereupon the House
may require the Member to withdraw. He is
[183]
§ 367
then to be heard in exculpation, and to with-

draw. Then the Speaker states the offense com-
mitted; and the House considers the degree of
punishment they will inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8,
172.
This provision of parliamentary law should be in conjunction with clause
4 of rule XVII, §§ 960–961, infra, particularly as this provision relates to
the ultimate authority of the House to determine whether a Member ignor-
ing repeated calls to order should be permitted to proceed in order.
For instances of assaults and affrays in the

§ 367. Proceedings in House of Commons, and the pro-
cases of assaults and
affrays. ceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc.,
82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey, 328; 5
Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever
warm words or an assault have passed between
Members, the House, for the protection of their
Members, requires them to declare in their
places not to prosecute any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128,
293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the
Speaker, who is to accommodate their dif-
ferences, and report to the House, 3 Grey, 419;
and they are put under restraint if they refuse,
or until they do. 9 Grey, 234, 312.
In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor of
the House. Sometimes the House has allowed these affairs to pass without
notice, the Members concerned making apologies either personally or
through other Members (II, 1658–1662). In other cases the House has ex-
acted apologies (II, 1646–1651, 1657), or required the offending Members
to pledge themselves before the House to keep the peace (II, 1643). In
case of an aggravated assault by one Member on another on the portico
of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the House censured the assailant
and three other Members who had been present, armed, to prevent inter-
ference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or affrays in the Committee of the Whole
are dealt with by the House (II, 1648–1651).
[184]
§ 368
Disorderly words are not to be noticed till the

§ 368. Parliamentary Member has finished his speech. 5
law as to taking down
disorderly words. Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the per-
son objecting to them, and desiring
them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table,
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct
the Clerk to take them down in his minutes; but
if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he
orders the Clerk to take them down, as stated
by the objecting Member. They are then a part
of his minutes, and when read to the offending
Member, he may deny they were his words, and
the House must then decide by a question
whether they are his words or not. Then the
Member may justify them, or explain the sense
in which he used them, or apologize. If the
House is satisfied, no further proceeding is nec-
essary. But if two Members still insist to take
the sense of the House, the Member must with-
draw before that question is stated, and then the
sense of the House is to be taken. 2 Hats., 199;
4 Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member has
spoken, or other business intervened, after offen-
sive words spoken, they can not be taken notice
of for censure. And this is for the common secu-
rity of all, and to prevent mistakes which must
happen if words are not taken down imme-
diately. Formerly they might be taken down at
any time the same day. 2 Hats., 196; Mem. in
Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey, 514.
The House has, by clause 4 of rule XVII, provided a method of procedure
in cases of disorderly words. The House permits and requires them to be
[185]
§ 369–§ 370
noticed as soon as uttered, and has not insisted that the offending Member
withdraw while the House is deciding as to its course of action.
Disorderly words spoken in a committee must

§ 369. Disorderly be written down as in the House;
words taken down
and reported from but the committee can only report
Committee of the
Whole.
them to the House for animadver-
sion. 6 Grey, 46.
This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the Com-
mittee of the Whole, rather than to select or standing committees, which
are separately empowered to enforce rules of decorum (clause 1(a) of rule
XI, which incorporates the provisions of rule XVII where applicable). The
House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee
of the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).
In Parliament, to speak irreverently or sedi-

tiously against the King is against
§ 370. References in
debate to the
Executive. order. Smyth’s Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2
Hats., 170.
This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to
the House (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in debate to refer to
the President of the United States or his opinions, either with approval
or criticism, provided that such reference be relevant to the subject under
discussion and otherwise conformable to the Rules of the House (V, 5087–
5091; VIII, 2500). Under this standard the following references are in order:
(1) a reference to the probable action of the President (V, 5092); (2) an
adjuration to the President to keep his word (although an improper form
of address) (Dec. 19, 1995, p. 37601); (3) an accusation that the President
‘‘frivolously vetoed’’ a bill (Nov. 8, 1995, p. 31785).
Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to im-
peach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language per-
sonally offensive (V, 5094; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829); and Members must
abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of
the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). Furthermore, when impeach-
ment is not the pending business on the floor, Members may not refer
to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained
in a communication from an independent counsel pending before a House
committee (Sept. 14, 1998, p. 20171; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20758), although
they may refer to the communication, itself, within the confines of proper
decorum in debate (Oct. 6, 1998, p. 23841).
Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not permitted
(VIII, 2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857; Sept. 21, 1994,
p. 25147; Sept. 7, 2006, pp. 17381, 17382). Under this standard it is not
[186]
§ 370
in order to call the President, or a presumptive major-party nominee for

President, a ‘‘liar’’ or accuse such person of ‘‘lying’’ (June 26, 1985, p. 17394;
Sept. 24, 1992, pp. 27345, 27346; Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32587; June 6, 1996,
pp. 13228, 13229; Mar. 18, 1998, p. 3937; Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22370; July
15, 2003, pp. 18172, 18173; Mar. 24, 2004, pp. 5115, 5116). Indeed, any
suggestion of mendacity is out of order. For example, the following remarks
have been held out of order: (1) suggesting that the President misrepre-
sented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged others to
perjure themselves (Feb. 25, 1998, p. 2621); (2) accusing him of dishonesty
(July 13, 2004, p. 15275; June 29, 2005, p. 14770) or of failing to be honest
(Apr. 14, 2011, p. l), accusing him of making a ‘‘dishonest argument’’
(Sept. 12, 2006, p. 17851), charging him with intent to be intellectually
dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828), or stating that many were convinced
he had ‘‘not been honest’’ (Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620); (3) accusing him of ‘‘rap-
ing’’ the truth (Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8807), not telling the truth (Oct. 29, 2003,
p. 26363), or distorting the truth (Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21570–73); (4) stating
that he was not being ‘‘straight with us’’ (Nov. 19, 2003, p. 29811); (5)
accusing him of being deceptive (Mar. 29, 2004, pp. 5523, 5524; Feb. 1,
2006, p. 647) or using ‘‘deceptive rhetoric’’ (Oct. 17, 2007, pp. 27534, 27538),
fabricating an issue (July 6, 2004, pp. 14313, 14314), or intending to mis-
lead (Oct. 6, 2004, p. 21053; July 12, 2007, p. 18827); (6) accusing him
of intentional mischaracterization, although mischaracterization without
intent to deceive is not necessarily out of order (July 19, 2005, p. 16525).
Furthermore, the following remarks have been held out of order as un-
parliamentary references to the President, or to a presumptive major-party
nominee for President: (1) attributing to him ‘‘hypocrisy’’ (Sept. 25, 1992,
p. 27674; Apr. 26, 2006, p. 6129); (2) accusing him of giving ‘‘aid and comfort
to the enemy’’ (Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; May 6, 2004, pp. 8601, 8602); (3)
accusing him of ‘‘demagoguery’’ (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144; Jan. 24, 1996,
pp. 1220, 1221; May 30, 1996, pp. 12646, 12647); (4) calling him a ‘‘draft-
dodger’’ (Apr. 24, 1996, pp. 8807, 8808; Sept. 30, 1996, p. 26603) or alleging
unexcused absences from military service (May 5, 2004, pp. 8417, 8418),
including allegations that the President was ‘‘A.W.O.L.’’ (Sept. 22, 2004,
p. 18953); (5) describing his action as ‘‘cowardly’’ (Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817);
(6) referring to him as ‘‘a little bugger’’ (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33974); (7) allud-
ing to alleged sexual misconduct on his part (May 10, 1994, p. 9697; Feb.
25, 1998, p. 1828; Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620; May 18, 1998, p. 9418); (8) alluding
to unethical behavior or corruption (e.g., June 20, 1996, p. 14829; July
9, 2002, p. 12286; Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 26400–402), such as implying a cause-
and-effect relationship between political contributions and his actions as
President (e.g., May 22, 2001, p. 9028; Sept. 29, 2004, pp. 19976, 19977),
including an accusation that the President had ‘‘lined the pockets’’ of his
‘‘political cronies’’ and filled ‘‘campaign coffers’’ (Sept. 14, 2005, pp. 20238,
20239); (9) discussing ‘‘charges’’ leveled at the President or under investiga-
tion (Mar. 19, 1998, p. 4094; June 11, 1998, p. 12025), including alluding
to ‘‘fund-raising abuses’’ (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716) or speculating that the
[187]
§ 370
Vice President might someday pardon the President for certain charges
(Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419); or discussing alleged criminal conduct (Sept. 10,
1998, p. 19976) or ‘‘illegal surveillance’’ (June 20, 2006, p. 11935); (10)
discussing personal conduct even as a point of reference or comparison
(July 16, 1998, p. 15784; Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19735); (11) asserting that a
major-party nominee had done something ‘‘disgusting’’ and ‘‘despicable’’
(Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4033); (12) asserting that a major-party nominee is not
‘‘a large enough person’’ to apologize (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4086) or that the
President does not care about black people (Sept. 8, 2005, p. 19797); (13)
describing his action as ‘‘arrogant’’ (Jan. 11, 2007, p. 998; Mar. 22, 2007,
p. 7321) or ‘‘mean-spirited’’ (July 15, 2008, p. l); (14) equating his decisions
with regard to armed conflict as him having ‘‘slaughtered’’ thousands (Mar.
8, 2007, p. 5815) or that a soldier’s death was for his ‘‘amusement’’ (Oct.
18, 2007, pp. 27569, 27570). The Chair may admonish Members trans-
gressing this stricture even after other debate has intervened (Jan. 23,
1996, p. 1144).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abu-
sive of the President that would be improper if spoken in the Member’s
own words (Mar. 3, 1993, p. 3958; Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32587; May 2, 1996,
p. 10010; Mar. 17, 1998, p. 3799; July 15, 2003, p. 18170; Sept. 16, 2003,
pp. 22151, 22152; Oct. 17, 2007, p. 27538). This prohibition includes the
recitation of another Member’s criticism of the President made off the floor
(even if recited as a rebuttal to such criticism) (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27775).
The Chair has advised that the protections afforded by Jefferson’s Man-
ual and the precedents against unparliamentary references to the Presi-
dent, personally, do not necessarily extend to members of his family (July
12, 1990, p. 17206).
References in debate to former Presidents are not governed by these
standards (Nov. 15, 1945, p. 10735; June 27, 2002, pp. 11844, 11845).
In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of
propriety for all debate concerning nominated candidates for the Presi-
dency, based on the traditional proscription against personally offensive
references to the President even in the capacity as a candidate (Speaker
Foley, Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27344); and this policy has been extended to a
presumptive major-party nominee for President (e.g., Apr. 22, 2004, pp.
7401, 7402). However, references to the past statements or views of such
nominee are not unparliamentary (May 6, 2004, p. 8554).
For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate
to the President, as in the second person, see § 945, infra.
On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a com-
mittee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part stated:
‘‘The freedom of speech in debate in the House should never be denied
or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does not mean license to
indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of Members of the two
Houses of Congress to criticize the official acts of the President and other
executive officers is beyond question, but this right is subject to proper
[188]
§ 371
rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right of criticism is inherent upon

legislative authority. The right to legislate involves the right to consider
conditions as they are and to contrast present conditions with those of
the past or those desired in the future. The right to correct abuses by
legislation carries the right to consider and discuss abuses which exist
or which are feared.
‘‘It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in speech
or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from
those other branches of the Government with which the House is cor-
related.’’
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what

has been said on the same subject
§ 371. References in
debate to the other
House and its in the other House, or the par-
Members.
ticular votes or majorities on it
there; because the opinion of each House should
be left to its own independency, not to be influ-
enced by the proceedings of the other; and the
quoting them might beget reflections leading to
a misunderstanding between the two Houses. 8
Grey, 22.
Until former clause 1 of rule XIV (currently clause 1 of rule XVII) was
amended in the 100th and 101st Congresses (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p.
6; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of comity and parliamentary
law as described by Jefferson governed debate in the House to the full
extent of its provisions (see generally, V, 5095–5130; VIII, 2501–21; July
31, 1984, p. 21670; Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, § 44). From the 101st Congress
through the 108th Congress, clause 1 of rule XVII permitted some factual
references that were a matter of public record, references to the pendency
or sponsorship in the Senate of certain measures, factual descriptions con-
cerning a measure under debate in the House, and quotations from Senate
proceedings relevant to the making of legislative history on a pending
measure. In the 109th Congress clause 1 was amended to permit debate
to include references to the Senate or its Members but within the general
stricture that requires Members to avoid personality (sec. 2(g), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Under the new standard, remarks may urge the
Senate to take a particular action (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l). For a recitation
of precedents under the former rule, see § 371 of the House Rules and
Manual for the 108th Congress (H. Doc. 107–284).
Since the adoption of the new rule, the following references to Members
of the Senate have been held unparliamentary: (1) accusing Senate Repub-
[189]
§ 371
licans of hypocrisy (May 16, 2005, p. 9757); (2) referring to Senate Demo-
crats as ‘‘cowardly’’ (May 18, 2005, p. 10136); (3) accusing a Senator of
making slanderous statements (June 17, 2005, p. 13009; June 21, 2005,
p. 13408); (4) attributing to a Senator a list of offenses under investigation
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Oct. 18, 2005, p. 22987); (5)
accusing a Senator of giving ‘‘aid and comfort’’ to the enemy (Dec. 13, 2005,
p. 28162); (6) accusing a Senator of corruption (Oct. 13, 2009, p. l) or
of taking bribes (Jan. 19, 2010, p. l); (7) stating a ‘‘low opinion’’ of the
Senate (Apr. 1, 2011, p. l).
It remains the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who engages
in personality with respect to a Senator (see § 374, infra), and the Chair
may admonish a Member for unparliamentary references even after inter-
vening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954; Nov. 15, 2001, p. 22596). Al-
though the Chair is under a duty to caution Members against unparliamen-
tary references, the Chair will not advise Members on how to construct
their remarks to avoid improper references (Feb. 25, 2004, pp. 2409–15).
The prohibition against improper references to Senators includes (1) a
reference not explicitly naming the Senator (VIII, 2512; Feb. 23, 1994,
p. 2658; June 30, 1995, p. 18153; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2768, 2769); (2) the
reading of a paper making criticisms of a Senator (V, 5127); (3) a reference
to another person’s criticism of a Senator (Aug. 4, 1983, p. 23145). Simi-
larly, the Chair has consistently held that if references to the Senate are
appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required to use the term
‘‘the other body,’’ (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047) and, by the same token, references
to ‘‘the other body’’ will not cure unparliamentary references directed to
the Senate (e.g., Oct. 2, 2002, p. 18913; Apr. 2, 2004, pp. 6394, 6395).
Under the earlier form of the rule, the Chair held that remarks in debate
during the pendency of an impeachment resolution may not include com-
parisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House or Senate
(Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829) and remarks in debate may not criticize words
spoken in the Senate by one not a Member of that body in the course
of an impeachment trial (V, 5106). After examination by a committee under
the earlier form of the rule, a speech reflecting on the character of the
Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record on the ground that
it tended to create ‘‘unfriendly conditions between the two bodies * * *
obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a public calamity’’ (V,
5129). Under the earlier form of the rule, where a Member had been as-
sailed in the Senate, he was permitted to explain his own conduct and
motives without bringing the whole controversy into discussion or assailing
the Senator (V, 5123–5126). Propositions relating to breaches of these prin-
ciples were entertained as a matter of privilege (V, 5129, 6980).
The precise standard in former clause 1 of rule XIV for references to
‘‘individual Members of the Senate’’ did not apply to references to former
Senators (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968).
The official policies, actions, and opinions of a Senator who is a candidate
for President or Vice President (as, in modern practice, with one who is
[190]
§ 373
not) may be criticized in terms not personally offensive (Speaker Wright,

Sept. 29, 1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or integrity
of a Senator in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 1979, p. 30150).
References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the Senate)
are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward the President,
as under the earlier form of the rule. As such, a Member may criticize
in debate the policies, or candidacy, of the Vice President but may not
engage in personality (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968; July 14, 1998, p. 15314;
Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18639). For example, it is not in order to allude to
‘‘wrongdoings [including] fund-raising telephone calls by the Vice Presi-
dent’’ (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716); to attribute to him a list of offenses under
investigation by a special prosecutor (Oct. 18, 2005, p. 22987); to suggest
that the House should investigate him in connection with government con-
tracts awarded to his former employer (June 15, 2006, p. 11480); to specu-
late that he might someday pardon the President (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419);
to accuse him of lying (Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18639; Sept. 21, 2000, p. 18789;
Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960; Mar. 6, 2007, p. 5412); to suggest ‘‘he has a problem
with the truth’’ (Oct. 5, 2000, p. 21014); to allege ‘‘unethical behavior’’ or
‘‘corruption’’ (see, e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 26400–402; Nov. 4, 2003, pp.
27070, 27071), including innuendo suggesting policy choices were made
on the basis of personal pecuniary gain (July 7, 2004, p. 14582; Sept. 13,
2005, pp. 20238, 20239) or accusations of abuse of power (July 14, 2004,
p. 15501); to describe him as ‘‘arrogant’’ (June 28, 2007, p. 17926; Sept.
25, 2008, p. l). The rule also precludes the insertion in the Record of
a paper making improper references to the Vice President (Sept. 19, 2000,
p. 18580).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding the
Vice President that would be improper if spoken in the Member’s own
words (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960).
Neither House can exercise any authority over

a Member or officer of the other,
§ 373. Complaint by
one House of conduct
but should complain to the House of
of a Member of the
other.
which he is, and leave the punish-
ment to them.
In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted
a Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the House,
which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a House
Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution declaring
the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to take appro-
priate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator subsequently asked
unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the permanent Congressional
Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28, 1951, p. 12383). But where
certain Members of the House, in a published letter, sought to influence
[191]
§ 374
the vote of a Senator in an impeachment trial, the House declined to con-

sider the matter as a breach of privilege (III, 2657). Although on one occa-
sion it was held that a resolution offered in the House requesting the Sen-
ate to expunge from the Record statements in criticism of a Member of
the House did not constitute a question of privilege, being in violation
of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in debate (VIII, 2519),
a properly drafted resolution referring to language published in the Record
of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of privilege and requesting
the Senate to take appropriate action concerning the subject has been held
to present a question of the privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).
* * * Where the complaint is of words dis-

respectfully spoken by a Member of
§ 374. Duty of the
Speaker to prevent
another House, it is difficult to ob-
expressions offensive
tain punishment, because of the

to the other House.
rules supposed necessary to be observed (as to

the immediate noting down of words) for the se-
curity of Members. Therefore it is the duty of
the House, and more particularly of the Speaker,
to interfere immediately, and not to permit ex-
pressions to go unnoticed which may give a
ground of complaint to the other House, and in-
troduce proceedings and mutual accusations be-
tween the two Houses, which can hardly be ter-
minated without difficulty and disorder. 3 Hats.,
51.
A rule of comity prohibiting most references in debate to the Senate
was first enunciated in Jefferson’s Manual and was strictly enforced in
the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with certain exceptions
adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses in the former clause 1(b) of
rule XVII) (§ 371, supra and § 945, infra). In the 109th Congress clause
1 was amended to permit references to the Senate or its Members, even
critical references, so long as avoiding personality (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Nevertheless, it remains the duty of the Chair to
call to order a Member who violates the rule in debate or through an inser-
tion in the Record.
The Chair has distinguished between engaging in personality toward
another Member of the House, as to which the Chair normally awaits a
point of order from the floor, and improper references to Members of the
Senate, which violate comity between the Houses, as to which the Chair
[192]
§ 375
normally takes initiative (Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2778, 2779). The Chair may
admonish Members to avoid unparliamentary references to the Senate
even after intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954). Pending con-
sideration of a measure relating to the Senate, the Speaker announced
his intention to strictly enforce this provision of Jefferson’s Manual prohib-
iting improper references to the Senate, and to deny recognition to Mem-
bers violating the prohibition, subject to permission of the House to proceed
in order (Speaker O’Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843). Under the earlier form
of clause 1 of rule XVII, the Chair refused to respond to hypothetical ques-
tions as to the propriety of possible characterizations of Senate actions
before their use in debate (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28819). For a further discussion
of the Speaker’s duties regarding unparliamentary debate, see §§ 960–961,
infra.
No Member may be present when a bill or any

§ 375. Course of the business concerning himself is de-
Member when
business concerning bating; nor is any Member to speak
that Member is under
debate.
to the merits of it till he withdraws.
2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a
charge against a Member arise out of a report of
a committee, or examination of witnesses in the
House, as the Member knows from that to what
points he is to direct his exculpation, he may be
heard to those points before any question is
moved or stated against him. He is then to be
heard, and withdraw before any question is
moved. But if the question itself is the charge,
as for breach of order or matter arising in the
debate, then the charge must be stated (that is,
the question must be moved), himself heard, and
then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.
In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker
informed the Member that he should retire (II, 1366); but this seems to
be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of Parliament.
In other cases, after the proposition for censure or expulsion has been
proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either as a matter of right
(II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), by express provision (II,
1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by unanimous consent (II, 1275). A
Member against whom a resolution of censure was pending was asked
by the Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). But a Member was
[193]
§ 376–§ 378
not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II, 1273).
In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his own
behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802–11) and expulsion pro-
ceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953–78; July 24, 2002, pp. 14299, 14309).
A Member-elect has been permitted to participate in debate on a resolution
relating to his right to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 23).
Where the private interests of a Member are

concerned in a bill or question he is
§ 376. Disqualifying
personal interest of a
Member. to withdraw. And where such an in-
terest has appeared, his voice has
been disallowed, even after a division. In a case
so contrary, not only to the laws of decency, but
to the fundamental principle of the social com-
pact, which denies to any man to be a judge in
his own cause, it is for the honor of the House
that this rule of immemorial observance should
be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey,
368.
In the House it has not been usual for the Member to withdraw from
debate when the Member’s private interests are concerned in a pending
measure, although clause 1 of rule III addresses voting in such a contin-
gency. In one instance the Senate disallowed a vote given by a Senator
on a question relating to his own right to a seat; but the House has never
had occasion to proceed so far (V, 5959).
No Member is to come into the House with his

§ 377. Wearing of hats head covered, nor to remove from
by Members.
one place to another with his hat
on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or re-
moving, until he be set down in his place. Scob.,
6.
In 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session
was abolished by adoption of current clause 5 of rule XVII. See § 962, infra.
§ 378. Adjournment of A question of order may be ad-

questions of order.
journed to give time to look into
precedents. 2 Hats., 118.
[194]
§ 379–§ 381
As described in §§ 628 and 628a, infra, the Speaker has declined, on

a difficult question of order, to rule until taking time for examination (III,
2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamen-
tary inquiry under advisement, especially if not related to the pending
proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8274). However, it is conceivable
that a case might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require
approval of the majority of the House to prevent arbitrary obstruction of
the pending business by the Chair. The law of Parliament evidently con-
templates that the adjournment of a question of order shall be controlled
by the House. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as erroneous a decision
previously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435).
§ 379. House’s control In Parliament, all decisions of the

over question of the
Speaker.
Speaker may be controlled by the
House. 3 Grey, 319.
The Speaker’s decision on a question of order is subject to appeal by
any Member (clause 5 of rule I).
SEC. XVIII—ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
Of right, the door of the House ought not to be

shut, but to be kept by porters, or
§ 380. Keeping of the
doors of the House.
Sergeants-at-Arms, assigned for
that purpose. Mod ten. Parl., 23.
The only case where a Member has a right to
§ 381. Right of the insist on anything, is where he calls
Member to demand
execution of the for the execution of a subsisting
subsisting order.
order of the House. Here there hav-
ing been already a resolution, any person has a
right to insist that the Speaker, or any other
whose duty it is, shall carry it into execution;
and no debate or delay can be had on it.
As a request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in effect a request
to suspend the order of business temporarily, a Member has the right at
any time to demand the ‘‘regular order’’ (IV, 3058). If the regular order
is demanded pending a request for unanimous consent, further reservation
of the right to object thereto is precluded (Speaker Foley, Nov. 14, 1991,
p. 32128; Nov. 7, 2009, p. l). Occasionally a Member may incorrectly de-
mand the ‘‘regular order’’ to assert that remarks are not confined to the
question under debate. On such an occasion the Chair may treat the de-
[195]
§ 382–§ 384
mand as a point of order requiring a ruling by the Chair (May 1, 1996,

pp. 9888, 9889).
Thus any Member has a right to

have the House or gallery cleared of

law for clearing the
galleries.
strangers, an order existing for that
purpose; or to have the House told when there
is not a quorum present. 2 Hats., 87, 129. How
far an order of the House is binding, see Hakew.,
392.
Absent an existing order for that purpose, a Member may not demand
that the galleries be cleared, because this power resides in the House (II,
1353), which has by rule extended the power to the Speaker (clause 2
of rule I) and the chair of the Committee of the Whole (clause 1 of rule
XVIII), but not to the individual Member.
But where an order is made that any par-

§ 383. Parliamentary ticular matter be taken up on a
law as to proceeding
with orders of the particular day, there a question is
day.
to be put, when it is called for,
whether the House will now proceed to that
matter? Where orders of the day are on impor-
tant or interesting matter, they ought not to be
proceeded on till an hour at which the House is
usually full [which in Senate is at noon].
The rule of the House providing for raising the question of consideration
(clause 3 of rule XVI) has, in connection with the practice as to special
orders of business, superseded this provision of the parliamentary law.
The House always proceeds with business at its hour of meeting, unless
prevented by a point that no quorum is present (IV, 2732).
Orders of the day may be discharged at any

time, and a new one made for a dif-
§ 384. Orders of the
day now obsolete.
ferent day, 3 Grey, 48, 313.
The House found the use of ‘‘Orders of the day’’ as a method of disposing
business impracticable as long ago as 1818, and not long after abandoned
their use (IV, 3057), although an interesting reference to them survives
in clause 1 of rule XIV. The House proceeds under rule XIV unless that
[196]
§ 385–§ 387
order is displaced by the use of special orders of business or the intervention

of privileged business.
When a session is drawing to a close and the

important bills are all brought in,
§ 385. Business at the
end of a session.
the House, in order to prevent
interruption by further unimportant bills, some-
times comes to a resolution that no new bill be
brought in, except it be sent from the other
House. 3 Grey, 156.
This provision is obsolete so far as the practice of the House is concerned,
because business goes on uninterruptedly until the Congress expires
(clause 6 of rule XI).
All orders of the House determine with the

session; and one taken under such
§ 386. Effect of end of
the session on existing
an order may, after the session is
orders, especially as
ended, be discharged on a habeas
to imprisonment.
corpus. Raym., 120; Jacob’s L. D. by Ruffhead;

Parliament, 1 Lev., 165, Pitchara’s case.
The House, by clause 6 of rule XI and the practice thereunder, has modi-
fied the rule of Parliament as to business pending at the end of a session
that is not at the same time the end of a Congress. A standing order,
like that providing for the hour of daily meeting of the House, expires
with a session (I, 104–109). The House uses few standing orders. However,
in the first session of the 104th Congress, the House continued a standing
order regarding special-order and morning-hour speeches for the remain-
der of the entire Congress (May 12, 1995, p. 12765). In 1866 the House
discussed its power to imprison for a period longer than the duration of
the existing session (II, 1629), and in 1870, for assaulting a Member return-
ing to the House from absence on leave. Patrick Woods was committed
for a term extending beyond the adjournment of the session, but not beyond
the term of the existing House (II, 1628).
Where the Constitution authorizes each House

§ 387. Jefferson’s views to determine the rules of its pro-
as to the
constitutional power ceedings it must mean in those
to make rules.
cases (legislative, executive, or judi-
ciary) submitted to them by the Constitution, or
in something relating to these, and necessary to-
[197]
§ 388
ward their execution. But orders and resolutions

are sometimes entered in the journals having no
relation to these, such as acceptances of invita-
tions to attend orations, to take part in proces-
sion, etc. These must be understood to be merely
conventional among those who are willing to
participate in the ceremony, and are therefore,
perhaps, improperly placed among the records of
the House.
The House has frequently examined its constitutional power to make
§ 388. The House’s
rules, and this power also has been discussed by the
construction of its Supreme Court (V, 6755). It has been settled that Con-
power to adopt rules.gress may not by law interfere with the constitutional
right of a future House to make its own rules (I, 82;
V, 6765, 6766), or to determine for itself the order of proceedings in effecting
its organization (I, 242–245; V, 6765, 6766). It also has been determined,
after long discussion and trial by practice, that one House may not continue
its rules in force to and over its successor (I, 187, 210; V, 6002, 6743–
6747; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132). Congress may bind itself in matters of proce-
dure (II, 1341; V, 6767, 6768), but its ability to so bind a succeeding Con-
gress has been called into doubt (V, 6766). In one case the Chair denied
the authority of such a law that conflicted with a rule of the House (IV,
3579). The theories involved in this question have been most carefully ex-
amined and decisively determined in reference to the law of 1851, which
directs the method of procedure for the House in its constitutional function
of judging the elections of its Members; and it has been determined that
this law is not of absolute binding force on the House, but rather a whole-
some rule not to be departed from except for cause (I, 597, 713, 726, 833;
II, 1122). In modern practice, existing statutory procedures, including pro-
visions of concurrent resolutions, are readopted as Rules of the House at
the beginning of each Congress (see, e.g., H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462).
This practice was codified in clause 1 of rule XXVIII (current rule XXIX)
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 75, see § 1105, infra). Where the House amended a standing
rule of general applicability during a session and the amended rule did
not require prospective application, the rule was interpreted to apply retro-
actively (Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22719).
As to the participation on occasions of ceremony, the House has entered
its orders on its journal; but it rarely attends outside the Capitol building
as a body (July 25, 2002, p. 14645), usually preferring that its Members
go individually (V, 7061–7064) or that it be represented by a committee
(V, 7053–7056) or other delegation (May 28, 1987, p. 14031). It has dis-
[198]
§ 389–§ 390
cussed, but not settled, its power to compel a Member to accompany it

outside the Hall on an occasion of combined business and ceremony (II,
1139). But the House remains in session for the inauguration of the Presi-
dent on the portico of the Capitol (Jan. 20, 1969, pp. 1288–92) and the
mace is carried to the ceremony.
SEC. XIX—PETITION
§ 389. Petitions, A petition prays something. A re-

remonstrances, and
memorials.
monstrance has no prayer. 1 Grey,
58.
The Rules of the House make no mention of remonstrances, but do men-
tion petitions and memorials (clause 3 of rule XII). Resolutions of State
legislatures and of primary assemblies of the people are received as memo-
rials (IV, 3326, 3327), but papers general or descriptive in form may not
be presented as memorials (IV, 3325).
Petitions must be subscribed by the peti-

tioners Scob., 87; L. Parl., c. 22; 9
§ 390. Signing and
presentation of
petitions. Grey, 362, unless they are attend-
ing, 1 Grey, 401 or unable to sign,
and averred by a member, 3 Grey, 418. But a pe-
tition not subscribed, but which the member pre-
senting it affirmed to be all in the handwriting
of the petitioner, and his name written in the
beginning, was on the question (March 14, 1800)
received by the Senate. The averment of a mem-
ber, or of somebody without doors, that they
know the handwriting of the petitioners, is nec-
essary, if it be questioned. 6 Grey, 36. It must be
presented by a member, not by the petitioners,
and must be opened by him holding it in his
hand. 10 Grey, 57.
In the House petitions have been presented for many years by filing
with the Clerk (clause 3 of rule XII). Members file them, and petitioners
do not attend on the House in the sense implied in the parliamentary
law. In cases in which a petition set forth serious changes, the petitioner
was required to have his signature attested by a notary (III, 2030, footnote).
[199]
§ 391–§ 392
Regularly a motion for receiving it must be

§ 391. Parliamentary made and seconded, and a question
law for the reception
of petitions. put, whether it shall be received,
but a cry from the House of ‘‘re-
ceived,’’ or even silence, dispenses with the for-
mality of this question. It is then to be read at
the table and disposed of.
Before the adoption of the provisions of clause 3 of rule XII, petitions
were presented from the floor by Members, and questions frequently arose
as to the reception thereof (IV, 3350–3356). But under the present practice
such procedure does not occur.
SEC. XX—MOTION
When a motion has been made, it is not to be

§ 392. Parliamentary put to the question or debated until
law as to making,
withdrawing, and it is seconded. Scob., 21.
reading of motions.
It is then, and not till then, in possession of

the House, and can not be withdrawn but by
leave of the House. It is to be put into writing,
if the House or Speaker require it, and must be
read to the House by the Speaker as often as
any Member desires it for his information. 2
Hats., 82.
The House has long since dispensed with the requirement of a second
for ordinary motions (clause 1 of rule XVI; V, 5304); and the requirement
of a second for a motion to suspend the rules was eliminated in the 102d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Clause 2 of rule XVI provides
further that a motion may be withdrawn before decision or amendment
(see § 904, infra); and clause 1 of the same rule provides that the motion
shall be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member (see § 902, infra).
In the practice of the House, when a paper on which the House is to vote
has been read once, the reading may not be required again unless the
House shall order it read (V, 5260).
[200]
§ 393–§ 395
It might be asked whether a motion for ad-

§ 393. Interruptions of journment or for the orders of the
the Member having
the floor. day can be made by one Member
while another is speaking? It can
not. When two Members offer to speak, he who
rose first is to be heard, and it is a breach of
order in another to interrupt him, unless by call-
ing him to order if he departs from it. And the
question of order being decided, he is still to be
heard through. A call for adjournment, or for the
order of the day, or for the question, by gentle-
men from their seats, is not a motion. No motion
§ 394. Members can be made without rising and ad-
required to rise to
make motions, call for dressing the Chair. Such calls are
the order of business,
etc.
themselves breaches of order,
which, though the Member who has
risen may respect, as an expression of impa-
tience of the House against further debate, yet,
if he chooses, he has a right to go on.
The practice of the House has modified the principle that the Member
who rises first is to be recognized (clause 2 of rule XVII); but in other
respects the principles of this paragraph are in force.
SEC. XXI—RESOLUTIONS
When the House commands, it is by an

§ 395. Orders and ‘‘order.’’ But fact, principles, and
resolutions of the
House. their own opinions and purposes,
are expressed in the form of resolu-
tions.
A resolution for an allowance of money to the
clerks being moved, it was objected to as not in
order, and so ruled by the Chair; but on appeal
to the Senate (i.e., a call for their sense by the
[201]
§ 396–§ 397
President, on account of doubt in his mind, ac-

cording to clause 5 of rule XXII) the decision
was overruled. Jour., Senate, June 1, 1796. I
presume the doubt was, whether an allowance of
money could be made otherwise than by bill.
In the modern practice concurrent resolutions have been developed as
§ 396. Concurrent
a means of expressing fact, principles, opinions, and
purposes of the two Houses (II, 1566, 1567). Joint com-
resolutions of the two
Houses. mittees are authorized by resolutions of this form (III,
1998, 1999), and they are used in authorizing correc-
tion of bills agreed to by both Houses (VII, 1042), amendment of enrolled
bills (VII, 1041), amendment of conference reports (VIII, 3308), requests
for return of bills sent to the President (VII, 1090, 1091), authorizing the
printing of certain enrolled bills by hand in the remaining days of a session
(Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32875), providing for joint session to receive message
from the President (VIII, 3335, 3336), authorizing the printing of congres-
sional documents (July 1, 1969, p. 17948); and fixing time for final adjourn-
ment (VIII, 3365). The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93–344)
provides for the adoption by both Houses of concurrent resolutions on the
budget that become binding on both Houses with respect to congressional
budget procedures (see § 1127, infra). A concurrent resolution is binding
on neither House until agreed to by both (IV, 3379), and, because not legis-
lative in nature, is not sent to the President for approval (IV, 3483). A
concurrent resolution is not a bill or joint resolution within the meaning
of clause 5 of rule XXI (requiring a three-fifths vote for approval of such
a measure if carrying an increase in a rate of tax on income) (Speaker
Gingrich, May 18, 1995, p. 13499). In the 106th Congress the Senate ne-
glected to adopt a House concurrent resolution vacating signatures of the
Presiding Officers on an enrolled bill and laying that bill on the table as
overtaken by another enactment (H. Con. Res. 234, adopted by the House
on Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30719). The Congress subsequently enacted section
1401 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act of 2001, which adopted that
concurrent resolution (as enacted by P.L. 106–554).
Another development of the modern practice is the joint resolution, which
is a bill so far as the processes of the Congress in rela-
§ 397. Joint
resolutions. tion to it are concerned (IV, 3375; VII, 1036). With the
exception of joint resolutions proposing amendments to
the Constitution (V, 7029), all these resolutions are sent to the President
for approval and have the full force of law. They are used for what may
be called the incidental, unusual, or inferior purposes of legislating (IV,
3372), as extending the national thanks to individuals (IV, 3370), the invi-
tation to Lafayette to visit America (V, 7082, footnote), notice to a foreign
government of the abrogation of a treaty (V, 6270), declaration of interven-
tion in Cuba (V, 6321), correction of an error in an existing act of legislation
[202]
§ 398
(IV, 3519; VII, 1092), enlargement of scope of inquiries provided by law

(VII, 1040), election of managers for National Soldiers’ Homes (V, 7336),
special appropriations for minor and incidental purposes (V, 7319), con-
tinuing appropriations (H.J. Res. 790, P.L. 91–33); establishing the date
for convening of Congress (H.J. Res. 1041, P.L. 91–182); extending the
submission date under law for transmittal of a report to Congress by the
President (H.J. Res. 635, P.L. 97–469); and extending the termination date
for a law (H.J. Res. 864, P.L. 91–59). At one time they were used for pur-
poses of general legislation; but the two Houses finally concluded that a
bill was the proper instrumentality for this purpose (IV, 3370–3373). A
joint resolution has been changed to a bill by amendment (IV, 3374), but
in the later practice it has become impracticable to do so.
Where a choice between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution
is not dictated by law, the House by its vote on consideration of a measure
decides which is the appropriate vehicle (and a point of order does not
lie that a concurrent rather than a joint resolution would be more appro-
priate to express the sense of the Congress on an issue) (Mar. 16, 1983,
p. 5669).
* * * * *
SEC. XXIII—BILLS, LEAVE TO BRING IN
When a Member desires to bring in a bill on

any subject, he states to the House
§ 398. Obsolete
provisions as to
in general terms the causes for
introduction of bills.
doing it, and concludes by moving

for leave to bring in a bill, entitled, &c. Leave
being given, on the question, a committee is ap-
pointed to prepare and bring in the bill. The
mover and seconder are always appointed of this
committee, and one or more in addition. Hakew.,
132; Scob., 40. It is to be presented fairly writ-
ten, without any erasure or interlineation, or the
Speaker may refuse it. Scob., 41; 1 Grey, 82, 84.
This provision is obsolete because rule XII provides an entirely different
method of introducing bills through the hopper. The introduction of bills
by leave was gradually dropped by the practice of the House, and after
1850 the present system of permitting Members to introduce at will bills
for printing and reference began to develop (IV, 3365).
[203]
§ 399–§ 400
SEC. XXIV—BILLS, FIRST READING
When a bill is first presented, the Clerk reads

it at the table, and hands it to the
§ 399. Obsolete
requirements as to
Speaker, who, rising, states to the
first reading of bills.
House the title of the bill; that this

is the first time of reading it; and the question
will be, whether it shall be read a second time?
then sitting down to give an opening for objec-
tions. If none be made, he rises again, and puts
the question, whether it shall be read a second
time? Hakew., 137, 141. A bill cannot be amend-
ed on the first reading, 6 Grey, 286; nor is it
usual for it to be opposed then, but it may be
done, and rejected. D’Ewes, 335, col. 1; 3 Hats.,
198.
This provision is obsolete, the practice under clause 8 of rule XVI now
governing the procedure of the House.
SEC. XXV—BILLS, SECOND READING
The second reading must regularly be on an-

§ 400. Obsolete other day. Hakew., 143. It is done
to second reading. by the Clerk at the table, who then
hands it to the Speaker. The Speak-
er, rising, states to the House the title of the
bill; that this is the second time of reading it;
and that the question will be, whether it shall
be committed, or engrossed and read a third
time? But if the bill came from the other House,
as it always comes engrossed, he states that the
question will be, whether it shall be read a third
time? and before he has so reported the state of
the bill, no one is to speak to it. Hakew., 143,
146.
[204]
§ 401
In the Senate of the United States, the Presi-

dent reports the title of the bill; that this is the
second time of reading it; that it is now to be
considered as in a Committee of the Whole; and
the question will be, whether it shall be read a
third time? or that it may be referred to a spe-
cial committee?
The provisions of this paragraph are to a large extent obsolete, the prac-
tice under clause 8 of rule XVI now governing.
SEC. XXVI—BILLS, COMMITMENT
If on motion and question it be decided that

§ 401. Parliamentary the bill shall be committed, it may
law (largely obsolete)
as to reference of bills then be moved to be referred to
to committees.
Committee of the Whole House, or
to a special committee. If the latter, the Speaker
proceeds to name the committee. Any member
also may name a single person, and Clerk is to
write him down as of the committee. But the
House have a controlling power over the names
and number, if a question be moved against any
one; and may in any case put in and put out
whom they please.
This paragraph is to a large extent obsolete. Bills are referred in the
first instance by the Speaker to standing committees as prescribed by the
rules (rule XII), and references of reported bills to the proper calendar
of the House are also made under direction of the Speaker (clause 2 of
rule XIII). Reference of a matter under consideration is made by a motion
to refer that specifies the committee and may provide for a select committee
of a specified number of persons (IV, 4402). But such committee is ap-
pointed only by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I).
Clause 2 of rule XIX provides that the Speaker may entertain a motion
to commit to a standing or select committee with or without instructions
pending or following the ordering of the previous question.
[205]
§ 402–§ 404
Those who take exceptions to some particulars

in the bill are to be of the com-
§ 402. Obsolete
provisions as to
mittee, but none who speak directly
constitution of
committees.
against the body of the bill; for he
that would totally destroy will not amend it,
Hakew., 146; Town., col., 208; D’Ewes, 634, col.
2; Scob., 47; or as is said, 5 Grey, 145, the child
is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it,
6 Grey, 373. It is therefore a constant rule ‘‘that
no man is to be employed in any matter who has
declared himself against it.’’ And when any
member who is against the bill hears himself
named of its committee he ought to ask to be ex-
cused. Thus, March 7, 1806, Mr. Hadley was, on
the question being put, excused from being of a
committee, declaring himself to be against the
matter itself. Scob., 46.
This provision is inapplicable in the House because committees have
majority and minority representation (IV, 4467, 4477, footnote).
The Clerk may deliver the bill to any member

of the committee, Town, col. 138;
§ 403. Delivery of bills
to committees.
but it is usual to deliver it to him
who is first named.
Following introduction, reference, and numbering, bills are sent to the
Government Printing Office for printing. Printed copies of all bills are dis-
tributed in accordance with law (44 U.S.C. 706) and copies are made avail-
able to the committee to which referred.
In some cases the House has ordered a com-

mittee to withdraw immediately
§ 404. Obsolete
provision for ordering
into the committee chamber and act
a committee to
on and bring back the bill, sitting

withdraw and bring
back a bill.
the House. Scob., 48. * * *
This procedure is rarely followed in the House, because the order of
business does not provide for such a motion.
[206]
§ 405–§ 407
When a bill is under consideration, however, the House may on motion

§ 405. Commital with
commit it with instructions to report forthwith with cer-
directions to report tain specified amendment (V, 5548, 5549), in which case
forthwith. the chair of the committee reports at once without
awaiting action of the committee (V, 5545–5547; VIII,
2730, 2732) and the bill is in order for immediate consideration (V, 5550;
VIII, 2735).
The motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of an ordi-
§ 406. Discharge of a
nary legislative proposition is not privileged under the
committee. rules (IV, 3533, 4693; VIII, 2316), but if a matter in-
volves a question of privilege (III, 2585, 2709; VIII,
2316), or is privileged under the rule relating to resolutions of inquiry
(clause 7 of rule XIII; III, 1871; IV, 4695) or is provided privilege under
statutes enacted under the rulemaking power of the House (see § 1130,
infra), the motion to discharge is admitted. The motion is not debatable
(III, 1868; IV, 4695), except as follows: (1) under statutory procedures;
(2) under clause 2 of rule XV; and (3) under modern practice of the House,
a motion to discharge a vetoed bill (Mar. 7, 1990, p. 3620; Sept. 19, 1996,
p. 23815). The motion may be laid on the table (V, 5407; VI, 415), but
the question of consideration may not be demanded against it (V, 4977).
* * * A committee meet when and where they

please, if the House has not ordered
§ 407. Meetings and
action of committees.
time and place for them, 6 Grey,
370; but they can only act when together, and
not by separate consultation and consent—noth-
ing being the report of the committee but what
has been agreed to in committee actually assem-
bled.
For discussion of committee procedure generally, see § 792, infra. In the
House the standing committees usually meet in their committee rooms,
but there is no rule requiring them to meet there, and in the absence
of direction by the House, committees designate the time and place of their
meetings (VIII, 2214).
Standing committees fix regular weekly, biweekly, or monthly meeting
days for the transaction of business (not less frequently than monthly,
under clause 2(b) of rule XI), and additional meetings may be called by
the chair as deemed necessary or by a majority of the committee in certain
circumstances (clause 2(c) of rule XI). If a committee has a fixed date of
meeting, a quorum of the committee may convene on such date without
call of the chair and transact business regardless of the absence of the
chair (VIII, 2214). A committee meeting being adjourned for lack of a
quorum, a majority of the members of the committee may not, without
[207]
§ 408
the consent of the chair, call a meeting of the committee on the same
day (VIII, 2213). For restrictions on committee action during a joint meet-
ing or joint session, see clause 2(i) of rule XI.
The House has adhered to the principle that a report must be authorized
§ 408. Authorization of
by a committee acting together, and a paper signed by
reports of committees. a majority of the committee acting separately has been
ruled out (IV, 4584; VIII, 2210–2212, 2220; see also
clause 2(h) of rule XI).
No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any committee
unless a majority of the committee were actually present (clause 2(h) of
rule XI). A report is sometimes authorized by less than a majority of the
whole committee, some members being silent or absent (II, 985, 986). In
a rare instance a majority of a committee agreed to a report, but disagreed
on the facts necessary to sustain the report (I, 819). In the situation in
which a committee finds itself unable to agree to a positive recommenda-
tion, being equally divided, it may report the fact to the House (I, 347;
IV, 4665, 4666) and may include evidence, majority and minority views
(III, 2403), minority views alone (II, 945), or propositions representing the
opposing contentions (III, 2497; IV, 4664).
For each record vote in committee on amending or reporting a public
measure or matter, the report to the House must disclose the total number
of votes cast for and against and the names of those voting for and against
(clause 3 of rule XIII). A resolution alleging that a committee report on
a bill contained descriptions of recorded votes on certain amendments as
prescribed by clause 3(b) of rule XIII that deliberately mischaracterized
the amendments, and directing the chair of the committee to file a supple-
mental report to change those descriptions, qualified as a question of the
privileges of the House (May 3, 2005, p. 8417).
It is the duty of the chair of each committee to report or cause to be
reported promptly any measure approved by the committee and to take
or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote (clause
2 of rule XIII); and a report must be filed within seven days following
the submission of a written request, signed by a majority of the committee
members, directing such filing (clause 2 of rule XIII).
It is not essential that the report of a committee be signed (II, 1274;
VIII, 2229), but the minority or other separate views are signed by those
concurring in them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229).
Objection being made that a report had not been authorized by a com-
mittee and there being doubt as to the validity of the authorization, the
question as to the reception of the report is submitted to the House (IV,
4588–4591). But the Speaker may decide the question if satisfied of the
validity or of the invalidity of the authorization (IV, 4584, 4592, 4593;
VIII, 2211, 2212, 2222–2224). And in a case wherein it was shown that
a majority of a committee had met and authorized a report the Speaker
did not heed the fact that the meeting was not regularly called (IV, 4594).
A bill improperly reported is not entitled to its place on the calendar (IV,
[208]
§ 409
3117); but the validity of a report may not be questioned after the House
has voted to consider it (IV, 4598), or after actual consideration has begun
(IV, 4599; VIII, 2223, 2225).
Where a question was raised regarding a chair’s alteration of a committee
amendment, the Speaker indicated that the proper time to raise a point
of order was when the unprivileged report was called up for consideration
(or when before the Committee on Rules for a special order of business)
and not when filed in the hopper (May 16, 1989, p. 9356). A resolution
including an allegation that the chair deliberately and improperly refused
to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a member of the committee
to dispense with the reading of an amendment and resolving that the House
disapproves of the manner in which the chair conducted the markup and
finding that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered
reported was held to constitute a question of the privileges of the House
(July 18, 2003, pp. 18698; July 23, 2003, p. 19171, 19172).
§ 409. The quorum of a A majority of the committee con-

select or standing
committee.
stitutes a quorum for business.
Elsynge’s Method of Passing Bills,
11.
A majority quorum is required in certain circumstances, such as report-
ing a measure or recommendation (clause 2(h) of rule XI); authorizing a
subpoena (clause 2(m) of rule XI); closing a meeting or hearing under
clauses 2(a) and 2(g) of rule XI (except as provided under clause 2(g)(2)(A)
with respect to certain hearing procedures); requesting immunity for a
witness (18 U.S.C. 6005); releasing executive-session material (clause
2(k)(7) of rule XI); and proceeding in open session after an assertion under
clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI. Each committee may fix the number of its mem-
bers, but not less than two, to constitute a quorum for taking testimony
and receiving evidence; and except for the Committees on Appropriations,
the Budget, and Ways and Means, a committee may fix the number of
members to constitute a quorum, which shall be not less than one-third
of its members, for taking certain other actions (clause 2(h) of rule XI).
A quorum of a committee may transact business and a majority of the
quorum, even though it be a minority of the whole committee, may author-
ize a report (IV, 4586), but an actual quorum of a committee must be
present to make action taken valid (VIII, 2212, 2222), unless the House
authorizes less than a quorum to act (IV, 4553, 4554). A quorum of a com-
mittee must be present when alleged perjurious testimony is given in order
to support a charge of perjury. Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84
(1949). The absence of a quorum of a committee at the time a witness
willfully fails to produce subpoenaed documents is not a valid defense in
a prosecution for contempt if the witness failed to raise that objection before
the committee. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950); United States
v. Fleischman, 339 U.S. 349 (1950).
[209]
§ 410–§ 412
Any Member of the House may be present at

any select committee, but cannot
§ 410. Presence of a
Member of the House
vote, and must give place to all of
in a select committee.
the committee, and sit below them.

Elsynge, 12; Scob., 49.
In the 95th Congress, clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI was amended to prohibit
the exclusion of noncommittee members from nonparticipatory attendance
in any closed hearing, except in the Committee on Ethics, unless the House
by majority vote authorizes a committee or subcommittee to close its hear-
ings to noncommittee members (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., Jan. 4, 1977, pp.
53–70). Formerly, a committee could close its doors in executive session
meetings to persons not invited or required, including Members of the
House who were not members of the committee (III, 1694; IV, 4558–4565;
see discussion at IV, 4540).
The committee have full power over the bill or

§ 411. Power of other paper committed to them, ex-
committees over the
body and title of a cept that they cannot change the
bill.
title or subject. 8 Grey, 228.
In the House committees may recommend amendments to the body of
a bill or to the title but may not otherwise change the text.
The paper before a committee, whether select

or of the whole, may be a bill, reso-
law governing
lutions, draught of an address, &c.,
consideration of bills,
and it may either originate with

etc., in committees.
them or be referred to them. In every case the

whole paper is read first by the Clerk, and then
by the chairman, by paragraphs, Scob., 49, paus-
ing at the end of each paragraph, and putting
questions for amending, if proposed. In the case
of resolutions or distinct subjects, originating
with themselves, a question is put on each sepa-
rately, as amended or unamended, and no final
question on the whole, 3 Hats., 276; but if they
relate to the same subject, a question is put on
the whole. If it be a bill, draught of an address,
[210]
§ 413
or other paper originating with them, they pro-

ceed by paragraphs, putting questions for
amending, either by insertion or striking out, if
proposed; but no question on agreeing to the
paragraphs separately; this is reserved to the
close, when a question is put on the whole, for
agreeing to it as amended or unamended. But if
it be a paper referred to them, they proceed to
put questions of amendment, if proposed, but no
final question on the whole; because all parts of
the paper, having been adopted by the House,
stand, of course, unless altered or struck out by
a vote. Even if they are opposed to the whole
paper, and think it cannot be made good by
amendments, they cannot reject it, but must re-
port it back to the House without amendments,
and there make their opposition.
In the House it has generally been held that a select or standing com-
mittee may not report a bill unless the subject matter has been referred
to it (IV, 4355–4360), except that under the modern practice reports filed
from the floor as privileged pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIII have been
permitted on bills and resolutions originating in certain committees and
not formally referred thereto. Pursuant to this paragraph some committees
have originated drafts of bills for consideration and amendment before
the introduction and referral of a numbered bill to committee(s). In the
older practice the Committee of the Whole originated resolutions and bills
(IV, 4705); but the later development of the rules governing the order of
business would prevent the offering of a motion to go into Committee of
the Whole for such a purpose, except by unanimous consent.
The natural order in considering and amend-

ing any paper is, to begin at the be-
§ 413. Order of
amending bills in the
House. ginning, and proceed through it by
paragraphs; and this order is so
strictly adhered to in Parliament, that when a
latter part has been amended, you cannot recur
back and make an alteration in a former part. 2
[211]
§ 414
Hats., 90. In numerous assemblies this restraint

is doubtless important. But in the Senate of the
United States, though in the main we consider
and amend the paragraphs in their natural
order, yet recurrences are indulged; and they
seem, on the whole, in that small body, to
produce advantages overweighing their incon-
veniences.
In the House, amendments to House bills are made before the previous
question is ordered, pending the engrossment and third reading (IV, 3392;
V, 5781; VII, 1051), and to Senate bills before the third reading (IV, 3393).
Amendments may be offered to any part of the bill without proceeding
consecutively section by section or paragraph by paragraph (IV, 3392). In
Committee of the Whole, bills are read section by section or paragraph
by paragraph and after a section or paragraph has been passed it is no
longer subject to amendment (clause 5 of rule XVIII; § 980, infra; July
12, 1961, p. 12405).
To this natural order of beginning at the be-

ginning there is a single exception
§ 414. Preamble
amended after the
found in parliamentary usage.
body of the bill or
When a bill is taken up in com-

resolution has been
considered.
mittee, or on its second reading,
they postpone the preamble till the other parts
of the bill are gone through. The reason is, that
on consideration of the body of the bill such al-
terations may therein be made as may also occa-
sion the alteration of the preamble. Scob., 50; 7
Grey, 431.
On this head the following case occurred in
the Senate, March 6, 1800: A resolution which
had no preamble having been already amended
by the House so that a few words only of the
original remained in it, a motion was made to
prefix a preamble, which having an aspect very
different from the resolution, the mover inti-
[212]
§ 414
mated that he should afterwards propose a cor-

respondent amendment in the body of the reso-
lution. It was objected that a preamble could not
be taken up till the body of the resolution is
done with; but the preamble was received, be-
cause we are in fact through the body of the res-
olution; we have amended that as far as amend-
ments have been offered, and, indeed, till little
of the original is left. It is the proper time,
therefore, to consider a preamble; and whether
the one offered be consistent with the resolution
is for the House to determine. The mover, in-
deed, has intimated that he shall offer a subse-
quent proposition for the body of the resolution;
but the House is not in possession of it; it re-
mains in his breast, and may be withheld. The
Rules of the House can only operate on what is
before them. The practice of the Senate, too, al-
lows recurrences backward and forward for the
purpose of amendment, not permitting amend-
ments in a subsequent to preclude those in a
prior part, or e converso.
In the practice of the House the preamble of a joint resolution is amended
after the engrossment and before the third reading (IV, 3414; V, 5469,
5470; VII, 1064), but the preamble of the joint resolution is not voted on
separately in the later practice even if amended, because the question on
passage covers the preamble as well as the resolving clause (V, 6147, 6148;
Oct. 29, 1975, p. 34283). After an amendment to the preamble has been
considered it is too late to propose amendments to the text of the bill (VII,
1065). In Committee of the Whole, amendments to the preamble of a joint
resolution are considered following disposition of any amendments to the
resolving clause (Mar. 9, 1967, pp. 6032–34; Mar. 22, 1967, pp. 7679–83;
May 25, 1993, p. 11036). Where a simple resolution of the House has a
preamble, the preamble may be laid on the table without affecting the
status of the accompanying resolution (V, 5430). Amendments to the pre-
amble of a concurrent or simple resolution are considered in the House
following the adoption of the resolution (Dec. 4, 1973, p. 39337; June 8,
[213]
§ 415–§ 416
1970, pp. 18668–71). The House considers an amendment reported from

the Committee of the Whole to the preamble of a Senate joint resolution
following disposition of amendment to the text and pending third reading
(May 25, 1993, p. 11036).
When the committee is through the whole, a

§ 415. Directions of a Member moves that the committee
committee for making
of its report. may rise, and the chairman report
the paper to the House, with or
without amendments, as the case may be. 2
Hats., 289, 292; Scob., 53; 2 Hats., 290; 8 Scob.,
50.
Clause 2 of rule XIII provides that it shall be the duty of the chair of
each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure
approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary
steps to bring the matter to a vote; and in any event, the report of a com-
mittee must be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days when
the House is not in session) after a majority of the committee has invoked
the procedures of clause 2 of rule XIII. In the House a committee may
order its report to be made by the chair (IV, 4669), or by any other member
of the committee (IV, 4526), even one from the minority party (IV, 4672,
4673; VIII, 2314). A committee report may be filed by a Delegate (July
1, 1958, p. 12870). Only the chair makes a report for the Committee of
the Whole (V, 6987).
When a vote is once passed in a committee it

§ 416. As to cannot be altered but by the House,
reconsideration of a
vote in committee. their votes being binding on them-
selves. 1607, June 4.
This provision of the parliamentary law has been held to prevent the
use of the motion to reconsider in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716–
4718; VIII, 2324, 2325) but it is in order in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole (VIII, 2793). The early practice seems to have inclined against
the use of the motion in a standing or select committee (IV, 4570, 4596),
but there is a precedent that authorized the use of the motion (IV, 4570,
4596), and on June 1, 1922, the Committee on Rules rescinded previous
action taken by the committee authorizing a report. In the later practice
the motion to reconsider is in order in committee so long as the measure
remains in possession of the committee and the motion is not prevented
by subsequent actions of the committee on the measure, and may be en-
tered on the same day as action to be reconsidered or on the next day
on which the committee convenes with a quorum present to consider the
[214]
§ 417–§ 418
same class of business (VIII, 2213), but a session adjourned without having
secured a quorum is a dies non and not to be counted in determining the
admissibility of a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2213). This provision does
not prevent a committee from reporting a bill similar to one previously
reported by such committee (VIII, 2311).
The committee may not erase, interline, or

blot the bill itself; but must, in a
§ 417. Method of
noting amendments to
paper by itself set down the amend-
a bill in committee.
ments, stating the words which are

to be inserted or omitted, Scob., 50, and where,
by references to page, line, and word of the bill.
Scob., 50.
This practice is still in force as to Senate bills of which the engrossed
copies cannot be in any way interlined or altered by House committees.
Original copies of House bills are not referred to committees but are main-
tained indefinitely by the Clerk. Both House and Senate bills are now
printed as referred, and committees may thus report either with proposed
amendments. In the official papers (signed engrossed copies), the engrossed
House amendments to a Senate bill would still be shown as a separate
message attached to the Senate engrossed bill when returned to the Senate.
SEC. XXVII—REPORT OF COMMITTEE
The chairman of the committee, standing in

§ 418. Parliamentary his place, informs the House that
method of submitting
reports. the committee to whom was re-
ferred such a bill, have, according
to order, had the same under consideration, and
have directed him to report the same without
any amendment, or with sundry amendments
(as the case may be), which he is ready to do
when the House pleases to receive it. And he or
any other may move that it be now received; but
the cry of ‘‘now, now,’’ from the House, generally
dispenses with the formality of a motion and
question. He then reads the amendments, with
the coherence in the bill, and opens the alter-
[215]
§ 419–§ 420
ations and the reasons of the committee for such

amendments, until he has gone through the
whole. He then delivers it at the Clerk’s table,
where the amendments reported are read by the
Clerk without the coherence; whereupon the pa-
pers lie upon the table till the House, at its con-
venience, shall take up the report. Scob., 52;
Hakew., 148.
This provision is to a large extent obsolete so far as the practice of the
House is concerned. Most of the reports of committees are made by filing
them with the Clerk without reading (clause 2 of rule XIII), and only the
reports of committees having leave to report at any time are made by
the chair or other member of the committee from the floor (clause 5 of
rule XIII). Except as provided in clause 2(c) of rule XIII, committee reports
must be submitted while the House is in session; and this requirement
may be waived by only by order of the House (by rule, suspension, or unani-
mous consent but not by motion) (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31951). Subject to avail-
ability requirements under clause 4 and timing considerations under clause
6 of rule XIII, all reports privileged under clause 5 of rule XIII may be
called up for consideration immediately after being filed (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34406). For a discussion of the three-day layover
rule, see § 850, infra.
The report being made, the committee is dis-

§ 419. Reports; solved and can act no more without
dissolution and
revival of select a new power. Scob. 51. But it may
committees.
be revived by a vote, and the same
matter recommitted to them. 4 Grey, 361.
This provision does not apply now to the Committees of the Whole or
to the standing committees. It does apply to select committees, which expire
when they report finally, but may be revived by the action of the House
in referring in open House a new matter (IV, 4404, 4405). The provision
does not preclude a standing committee from reporting a bill similar to
one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 2311).
SEC. XXVIII—BILL, RECOMMITMENT
After a bill has been committed and reported,

it ought not, in any ordinary course,
§ 420. Recommittal of
a bill to a committee.
to be recommitted; but in cases of
[216]
§ 421
importance, and for special reasons, it is some-

times recommitted, and usually to the same
committee. Hakew, 151. If a report be recommit-
ted before agreed to in the House, what has
passed in committee is of no validity; the whole
question is again before the committee, and a
new resolution must be again moved, as if noth-
ing had passed. 3 Hats., 131—note.
In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was
recommitted three times after the commitment.
Where a matter is recommitted with instructions the committee must
confine itself within the instructions (IV, 4404), and if the instructions
relate to a certain portion only of a bill, other portions may not be reviewed
(V, 5526). When a report has been disposed of adversely a motion to recom-
mit it is not in order (V, 5559). Bills are sometimes recommitted to the
Committee of the Whole as the indirect result of the action of the House
(clause 9 of rule XVIII; IV, 4784) or directly on motion either with or with-
out instructions (V, 5552, 5553).
A particular clause of a bill may be committed

without the whole bill, 3 Hats., 131;
§ 421. Division of
matters for reference
to committees.or so much of a paper to one and so
much to another committee.
In the usage of the House before the rules provided that petitions should
be filed with the Clerk instead of being referred from the floor, it was
the practice to refer a portion of a petition to one committee and the remain-
der to another when the subject matter called for such division (IV, 3359).
Clause 2 of rule XII now permits the Speaker to refer bills, and resolutions,
with or without time limitations, either (1) simultaneously to two or more
committees for concurrent consideration, while indicating one committee
of primary jurisdiction (except under extraordinary circumstances), (2) se-
quentially to appropriate committees after the report of the committee or
committees initially considering the matter, (3) to divide the matter for
referral, (4) to appoint an ad hoc committee with the approval of the House,
or (5) to make other appropriate provisions, in order to assure that to
the maximum extent feasible each committee with subject matter jurisdic-
tion over provisions in that measure may consider and report to the House
with respect thereto. Under former precedents a bill, resolution, or commu-
nication could not be divided for reference (IV, 4372, 4376).
[217]
§ 422–§ 423
SEC. XXIX—BILL, REPORTS TAKEN UP
When the report of a paper originating with a

§ 422. Consideration committee is taken up by the
and action on reports.
House, they proceed exactly as in
committee. Here, as in committee, when the
paragraphs have, on distinct questions, been
agreed to seriatim, 5 Grey, 366; 6 Grey, 368; 8
Grey, 47, 104, 360; 1 Torbuck’s Deb., 125; 3
Hats., 348, no question needs be put on the
whole report. 5 Grey, 381.
In the House, bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple
resolutions come before the House for action although the written reports
accompanying them, which are always printed, do not (IV, 4674), and even
the reading of the reports is in order only in the time of debate (V, 5292).
The Chair will not recognize a Member during debate on a bill in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole for unanimous consent to amend
the accompanying committee report in a specified manner, because the
House should not change the substance of a committee report upon which
it is not called to vote (Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7209; Nov. 7, 1989, p. 27762).
In rare instances, however, committees submit merely written reports
without propositions for action. Such reports being before the House may
be debated before any specific motion has been made (V, 4987, 4988), and
are in such case read to the House (IV, 4663) and after being considered
the question is taken on agreeing. In such cases the report appears in
full on the Journal (II, 1364; IV, 4675; V, 7177). When reports are acted
on in this way it has not been the practice of the House to consider them
by paragraphs, but the question has been put on the whole report (II,
1364).
On taking up a bill reported with amendments

§ 423. Action by the the amendments only are read by
House on amendments
recommended by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads
committees.
the first, and puts it to the ques-
tion, and so on till the whole are adopted or re-
jected, before any other amendment be admitted,
except it be an amendment to an amendment.
Elsynge’s Mem., 53. When through the amend-
ments of the committee, the Speaker pauses,
[218]
§ 424
and gives time for amendments to be proposed

in the House to the body of the bill; as he does
also if it has been reported without amend-
ments; putting no questions but on amendments
proposed; and when through the whole, he puts
the question whether the bill shall be read a
third time?
The procedure outlined by this provision of the parliamentary law applies
to bills when reported from the Committee of the Whole; but in practice
it is usual to vote on the amendments in gross. But any Member may
demand a separate vote (see § 337, supra). The principle that the committee
amendments should be voted on before amendments proposed by individual
Members is recognized (IV, 4872–4876; V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 2863), except
when it is proposed to amend a committee amendment. The Clerk reads
the amendments and the Speaker does not again read them. Frequently
the House orders the previous question on the committee amendments
and the bill to final passage, thus preventing further amendment. When
a bill is of such nature that it does not go to Committee of the Whole,
it comes before the House from the House Calendar, on which it has been
placed on being reported from the standing or select committee or pursuant
to a special order of business. On being taken from the House Calendar
the bill is read through and then the amendments proposed by the com-
mittee are read. In modern practice the House may adopt a special order
‘‘self-executing’’ the adoption of the reported committee amendments in
the House, and may permit further amendment to the amended text (e.g.,
H. Res. 245, 106th Cong., July 15, 1999, p. 16216).
SEC. XXX—QUASI-COMMITTEE
If on motion and question the bill be not com-

§ 424. Procedure ‘‘in mitted, or if no proposition for com-
the House as in
Committee of the mitment be made, then the pro-
Whole.’’
ceedings in the Senate of the
United States and in Parliament are totally dif-
ferent. The former shall be first stated.
The proceeding of the Senate as in a Com-
mittee of the Whole, or in quasi-committee, is
precisely as in a real Committee of the Whole,
taking no question but on amendments. When
[219]
§ 425
through the whole, they consider the quasi-com-

mittee as risen, the House resumed without any
motion, question, or resolution to that effect, and
the President reports that ‘‘the House, acting as
in a Committee of the Whole, have had under
their consideration the bill entitled, &c., and
have made sundry amendments, which he will
now report to the House.’’ The bill is then before
them, as it would have been if reported from a
committee, and the questions are regularly to be
put again on every amendment; which being
gone through, the President pauses to give time
to the House to propose amendments to the body
of the bill, and, when through, puts the question
whether it shall be read a third time?
The House may proceed ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’
only by unanimous consent (IV, 4923) or special rule (Dec. 18, 1974, p.
40858). If the House grants unanimous consent for the immediate consider-
ation of a bill on the Union Calendar, or which would belong on the Union
Calendar if reported, the bill is considered in the House as in the Com-
mittee of the Whole (Apr. 6, 1966, p. 7749; Aug. 3, 1970, p. 26918; Deschler,
ch. 22, § 2.2). In the modern practice of the House an order for this proce-
dure means merely that the bill will be considered as having been read
for amendment and will be open for amendment and debate under the
five-minute rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050; clause 5 of rule XVIII), without
general debate (IV, 4924, 4925; VI, 639; VIII, 2431, 2432). The Speaker
remains in the chair and, when the previous question is moved, makes
no report but puts the question on ordering the previous question and
then on engrossment and third reading and on passage.
For further description of the procedures applicable to the House as in
the Committee of the Whole, and the application of those procedures to
committees of the House, see § 427, infra.
After progress in amending the bill in quasi-

§ 425. Motion to refer committee, a motion may be made
admitted ‘‘in the
House as in to refer it to a special committee. If
Committee of the
Whole.’’
the motion prevails, it is equivalent
in effect to the several votes, that
[220]
§ 426
the committee rise, the House resume itself, dis-

charge the Committee of the Whole, and refer
the bill to a special committee. In that case, the
amendments already made fall. But if the mo-
tion fails, the quasi-committee stands in status
quo.
How far does this XXVIIIth rule [of the Sen-
§ 426. Motions and ate] subject the House, when in
procedure in quasi-
committee in quasi-committee, to the laws which
Jefferson’s time.
regulate the proceedings of Commit-
tees of the Whole? The particulars in which
these differ from proceedings in the House are
the following: 1. In a committee every member
may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes
of a committee may be rejected or altered when
reported to the House. 3. A committee, even of
the whole, cannot refer any matter to another
committee. 4. In a committee no previous ques-
tion can be taken; the only means to avoid an
improper discussion is to move that the com-
mittee rise; and if it be apprehended that the
same discussion will be attempted on returning
into committee, the House can discharge them,
and proceed itself on the business, keeping down
the improper discussion by the previous ques-
tion. 5. A committee cannot punish a breach of
order in the House or in the gallery. 9 Grey, 113.
It can only rise and report it to the House, who
may proceed to punish. The first and second of
these peculiarities attach to the quasi-committee
of the Senate, as every day’s practice proves,
and it seems to be the only ones to which the
XXVIIIth rule meant to subject them; for it con-
[221]
§ 427
tinues to be a House, and, therefore, though it

acts in some respects as a committee, in others
it preserves its character as a House. Thus (3) it
is in the daily habit of referring its business to
a special committee. 4. It admits of the previous
question. If it did not, it would have no means
of preventing an improper discussion; not being
able, as a committee is, to avoid it by returning
into the House, for the moment it would resume
the same subject there, the XXVIIIth rule de-
clares it again a quasi-committee. 5. It would
doubtless exercise its powers as a House on any
breach of order. 6. It takes a question by yea
and nay, as the House does. 7. It receives mes-
sages from the President and the other House. 8.
In the midst of a debate it receives a motion to
adjourn, and adjourns as a House, not as a com-
mittee.
In the modern practice of the House, the rule of Jefferson’s Manual is
followed to the extent that the House, while acting ‘‘in
§ 427. Motions and
procedure ‘‘in the the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ may deal with
House as in disorder, take the yeas and nays, adjourn, refer to a
Committee of the committee even though the reading by sections may not
Whole.’’
have begun (IV, 4931, 4932), admit the motion to recon-
sider (VIII, 2793), receive messages (IV, 4923), and use the previous ques-
tion (VI, 369; Procedure, ch. 23, § 6.3) (which differs from the previous
question of Jefferson’s time). The previous question may not be moved
on a single section of a bill (IV, 4930), but it may be demanded on the
bill while Members yet desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926–4929; VI,
639). Formerly a motion to close debate on the pending section of a bill
being read by section for amendment in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole was in order (IV, 4935), but under current practice a bill
considered ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ is considered as
read and open for amendment at any point (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050), and
a motion is in order ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ to close
debate on the bill or on an amendment (June 26, 1973, p. 21314). An
amendment may be withdrawn at any time before action has been had
on it (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21305). An amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order after perfecting amendments have been consid-
[222]
§ 428
ered (IV, 4933, 4934; V, 5788). The title also is amended after the bill
has been considered (IV, 3416). A quorum of the House (and not of the
Committee of the Whole) is required in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole (VI, 639).
The procedures applicable in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
generally apply to proceedings in committees of the House, except that
a measure considered in committee must be read (by section) for amend-
ment (see § 413, supra). Therefore, in committee a motion to limit debate
under the five-minute rule must be confined to the portion of the measure
then pending.
SEC. XXXI—BILL, SECOND READING IN THE HOUSE
In Parliament, after the bill has been read a

§ 428. Manner of second time, if on the motion and
reading a bill the
second time. question it be not committed, or if
no proposition for commitment be
made, the speaker reads it by paragraphs, paus-
ing between each, but putting no question but
on amendments proposed; but when through the
whole, he puts the question whether it shall be
read a third time, if it came from the other
house, or, if originating with themselves, wheth-
er it shall be engrossed and read a third time.
The speaker reads sitting, but rises to put ques-
tions. The clerk stands while he reads.
But the Senate of the United States is so
much in the habit of making many and material
amendments at the third reading that it has be-
come the practice not to engross a bill till it has
passed—an irregular and dangerous practice, be-
cause in this way the paper which passes the
Senate is not that which goes to the other
House, and that which goes to the other House
as the act of the Senate has never been seen in
the Senate. In reducing numerous, difficult, and
illegible amendments into the text the Secretary
[223]
§ 429
may, with the most innocent intentions, commit

errors which can never again be corrected.
In the House the Clerk and not the Speaker or chair of the Committee
of the Whole reads bills on second reading. After the second reading, which
is by paragraph or section in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is open
to amendment (see § 980, infra). Clause 8 of rule XVI, as explained in
§ 942, infra, governs first and second readings of bills in the House and
in Committee of the Whole.
The bill being now as perfect as its friends can

§ 429. Test of strength make it, this is the proper stage for
on engrossment after
amendment. those fundamentally opposed to
make their first attack. All at-
tempts at earlier periods are with disjointed ef-
forts, because many who do not expect to be in
favor of the bill ultimately, are willing to let it
go on to its perfect state, to take time to exam-
ine it themselves and to hear what can be said
for it, knowing that after all they will have suffi-
cient opportunities of giving it their veto. Its two
last stages, therefore, are reserved for this—that
is to say, on the question whether it shall be en-
grossed and read a third time, and, lastly,
whether it shall pass. The first of these is usu-
ally the most interesting contest, because then
the whole subject is new and engaging, and the
minds of the Members having not yet been de-
clared by any trying vote the issue is the more
doubtful. In this stage, therefore, is the main
trial of strength between its friends and oppo-
nents, and it behooves everyone to make up his
mind decisively for this question, or he loses the
main battle; and accident and management may,
and often do, prevent a successful rallying on
the next and last question, whether it shall pass.
[224]
§ 430–§ 432
In the House there are two other means of testing strength: raising the
question of consideration when the bill first comes up
§ 430. Test of strength
on a bill before (clause 3 of rule XVI), and moving to strike the enacting
amending. words when it is first open to amendment (clause 9
of rule XVIII). By these methods an adverse opinion
may be expressed without permitting the bill to consume the time of the
House.
§ 431. Endorsement of When the bill is engrossed the

the title on an
engrossed bill.
title is to be indorsed on the back,
and not within the bill. Hakew, 250.
In the practice of the House and the Senate the title appears in its proper
place in the engrossed bill, and also is endorsed, with the number, on
the back.
SEC. XXXII—READING PAPERS
Where papers are laid before the House or re-

ferred to a committee every Mem-
law as to the reading
of papers. ber has a right to have them once
read at the table before he can be
compelled to vote on them; but it is a great
though common error to suppose that he has a
right, toties quoties, to have acts, journals, ac-
counts, or papers on the table read independ-
ently of the will of the House. The delay and
interruption which this might be made to
produce evince the impossibility of the existence
of such a right. There is, indeed, so manifest a
propriety of permitting every Member to have as
much information as possible on every question
on which he is to vote, that when he desires the
reading, if it be seen that it is really for informa-
tion and not for delay, the Speaker directs it to
be read without putting a question, if no one ob-
jects; but if objected to, a question must be put.
2 Hats., 117, 118.
[225]
§ 433–§ 436
Until the 103d Congress the House, by former rule XXX, had a provision
regarding the reading a paper other than that on which the House is called
to give a final vote (see §§ 964, 965, infra).
It is equally an error to suppose that any

§ 433. Papers not Member has a right, without a
necessarily to be read
on plea of privilege. question put, to lay a book or paper
on the table, and have it read, on
suggesting that it contains matter infringing on
the privileges of the House. Ib.
For the same reason a Member has not a right
§ 434. Member not to read a paper in his place, if it be
always privileged to
read a paper in his objected to, without leave of the
place.
House. But this rigor is never exer-
cised but where there is an intentional or gross
abuse of the time and patience of the House.
A Member has not a right even to read his
own speech, committed to writing, without leave.
This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and
therefore is not refused but where that is in-
tended. 2 Grey, 227.
A report of a committee of the Senate on a bill
§ 435. Reports of from the House of Representatives
committees not read
except on order or in being under consideration: on mo-
debate.
tion that the report of the com-
mittee of the House of Representatives on the
same bill be read in the Senate, it passed in the
negative. Feb. 28, 1793.
In the House ordinary reports are read only in time of debate (V, 5292).
But in a few cases, in which a report does not accompany a bill or other
proposition of action, but presents facts and conclusions, it is read to the
House if acted on (II, 1364; IV, 4663).
Formerly, when papers were referred to a

§ 436. Reading of committee, they used to be first
papers on reference.
read; but of late only the titles, un-
[226]
§ 437–§ 439
less a Member insists they shall be read, and

then nobody can oppose it. 2 Hats., 117.
Under the rules, petitions, memorials, and communications are referred
through the Clerk’s desk, so that there is no opportunity for reading before
reference, though messages from the President are read (clauses 1 and
3 of rule XII; clause 2 of rule XIV).
SEC. XXXIII—PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS
It is no possession of a bill unless it be deliv-

§ 437. Possession of aered to the Clerk to read, or the
bill by the House.
Speaker reads the title. Lex. Parl.,
274; Elysynge Mem., 85; Ord. House of Com-
mons, 64.
It is a general rule that the question first
§ 438. Theory as to moved and seconded shall be first
privileged questions.
put. Scob., 28, 22; 2 Hats., 81. But
this rule gives way to what may be called privi-
leged questions; and the privileged questions are
of different grades among themselves.
In the House, by rule and practice, the system of privileged motions
and privileged questions has been highly developed (rule IX, clause 5 of
rule XIII, clause 1 of rule XIV, and clause 4 of rule XVI).
A motion to adjourn simply takes place of all

§ 439. Precedence of others; for otherwise the House
the motion to adjourn.
might be kept sitting against its
will, and indefinitely. Yet this motion can not be
received after another question is actually put
and while the House is engaged in voting.
The rules and practice of the House have prescribed comprehensively
the privilege and status of the motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule XVI).
The motion intervenes between the putting of the question and the voting,
and also between the different methods of voting, as between a vote by
division and a vote by yeas and nays, as after the yeas and nays are ordered
and before the roll call begins (V, 5366). But after the roll call begins it
may not be interrupted (V, 6053). Clause 4 of rule XVI was amended in
the 93d Congress to provide that a motion that when the House adjourns
[227]
§ 440–§ 441
on that day it stand adjourned to meet at a day and time certain is of

equal privilege with the motion to adjourn, if the Speaker recognizes for
that purpose (H. Res. 6, p. 26). In the 102d Congress the motion to authorize
the Speaker to declare a recess was given an equal privilege (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).
Orders of the day take place of all other ques-
tions, except for adjournment—that
§ 440. Obsolete
parliamentary law
is to say, the question which is the
governing orders of
the day.
subject of an order is made a privi-
leged one, pro hac vice. The order is a repeal of
the general rule as to this special case. When
any Member moves, therefore, for the order of
the day to be read, no further debate is per-
mitted on the question which was before the
House; for if the debate might proceed it might
continue through the day and defeat the order.
This motion, to entitle it to precedence, must be
for the orders generally, and not for any par-
ticular one; and if it be carried on the question,
‘‘Whether the House will now proceed to the or-
ders of the day?’’ they must be read and pro-
ceeded on in the course in which they stand, 2
Hats., 83; for priority of order gives priority of
right, which cannot be taken away but by an-
other special order of business.
‘‘Orders of the day’’ were part of the regular and daily order of business
(IV, 3151). Although a mention of them has survived in clause 1 of rule
XIV, they have disappeared from the practice of the House (IV, 3057) and
should not be confused with ‘‘special orders of business,’’ which are resolu-
tions reported from the Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 5 of rule
XIII to provide for consideration of matters not regularly in order. The
term ‘‘special orders’’ is also used separately to describe permission to ad-
dress the House at the conclusion of legislative business.
After these there are other privileged ques-
§ 441. Jefferson’s tions, which will require consider-
discussion of certain
privileged motions. able explanation.
[228]
§ 442–§ 443
It is proper that every parliamentary assem-

bly should have certain forms of questions, so
adapted as to enable them fitly to dispose of
every proposition which can be made to them.
Such are: 1. The previous question. 2. To post-
pone indefinitely. 3. To adjourn a question to a
definite day. 4. To lie on the table. 5. To commit.
6. To amend. The proper occasion for each of
these questions should be understood.
The House by clause 4 of rule XVI has established the priority and other
conditions of motions of this kind.
1. When a proposition is moved which it is

§ 442. Obsolete use of useless or inexpedient now to ex-
the previous question.
press or discuss, the previous ques-
tion has been introduced for suppressing for that
time the motion and its discussion. 3 Hats., 188,
189.
The previous question of the parliamentary law has been changed by
the House into an instrument of entirely different use (V, 5445; clause
1 of rule XIX).
2. But as the previous question gets rid of it

§ 443. The motion to only for that day, and the same
postpone indefinitely.
proposition may recur the next day,
if they wish to suppress it for the whole of that
session, they postpone it indefinitely. 3 Hats.,
183. This quashes the proposition for that ses-
sion, as an indefinite adjournment is a dissolu-
tion, or the continuance of a suit sine die is a
discontinuance of it.
As already explained, in the House the previous question is no longer
used as a method of postponement (V, 5445) but a means to bring the
pending matter to an immediate vote. The House does use the motion
to postpone indefinitely, and in clause 4 of rule XVI and the practice there-
under, has defined the nature and use of the motion.
[229]
§ 444–§ 445
3. When a motion is made which it will be

§ 444. Postponement to proper to act on, but information is
a day certain.
wanted, or something more press-
ing claims the present time, the question or de-
bate is adjourned to such a day within the ses-
sion as will answer the views of the House. 2
Hats., 81. And those who have spoken before
may not speak again when the adjourned debate
is resumed. 2 Hats., 73. Sometimes, however,
this has been abusively used by adjourning it to
a day beyond the session, to get rid of it alto-
gether as would be done by an indefinite post-
ponement.
The House does not use the motion to adjourn a debate. But it accom-
plishes the purpose of such a procedure by the motion to postpone to a
day certain, which applies, not to a debate, but to the bill or other propo-
sition before the House. Of course, if a bill that is under debate is post-
poned, the effect is to postpone the debate. The conditions and use of the
motion are treated under clause 4 of rule XVI.
4. When the House has something else which

§ 445. Motion to lay on claims its present attention, but
the table.
would be willing to reserve in their
power to take up a proposition whenever it shall
suit them, they order it to lie on their table. It
may then be called for at any time.
This is the use of the motion to lay on the table that is established
in the general parliamentary law, and was followed in the early practice
of the House. But by an interesting evolution in the House the motion
has now come to serve an entirely new purpose, being used for the final,
adverse disposition of a matter (clause 4 of rule XVI; V, 5389). And a matter
once laid on the table may be taken therefrom only by suspension of the
rules (V, 6288) or similar process, unless it be a matter of privilege (V,
5438, 5439) such as bills vetoed by the President (IV, 3549; V, 5439). A
proposition to impeach having been laid on the table, a similar or identical
proposition may be again brought up (III, 2049; VI, 541).
[230]
§ 446–§ 447
5. If the proposition will want more amend-

§ 446. Delegation of ment and digestion than the for-
consideration to
committee. malities of the House will conven-
iently admit, they refer it to a com-
mittee.
6. But if the proposition be well digested, and
may need but few and simple amendments, and
especially if these be of leading consequence,
they then proceed to consider and amend it
themselves.
In the House it is a general rule that all business goes to committees
before receiving consideration in the House itself. Occasionally a question
of privilege or a minor matter of business is presented and considered
at once by the House.
The Senate, in their practice, vary from this

regular graduation of forms. Their
§ 447. Privileged
motions in the Senate
practice comparatively with that of
and in Parliament.
Parliament stands thus:
FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY: THE SENATE USES:
Postponement to a
Postponement indefinite, ! day beyond the
session.
Postponement to a
Adjournment, ! day within the ses-
sion.
Postponement in-
Lying on table, ! definite. Lying on
the table.
In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares
that while a question is before the Senate no
motion shall be received, unless it be for the pre-
vious question, or to postpone, commit, or amend
[231]
§ 448
the main question, the term postponement must

be understood according to their broad use of it,
and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule,
then, establishes as privileged questions the pre-
vious question, postponement, commitment, and
amendment.
The House governs these motions by clause 4 of rule XVI.
But it may be asked: Have these questions

§ 448. Obsolete any privilege among themselves? or
provision as to
priority of privileged are they so equal that the common
motions.
principle of the ‘‘first moved first
put’’ takes place among them? This will need ex-
planation. Their competitions may be as follows:
1. Previous question and post-
pone
commit
" In the first,
amend second, and
2. Postpone and previous ques- third classes,
tion and the first
commit
" member of
amend the fourth
3. Commit and previous ques- class, the
tion rule ‘‘first
postpone
" moved first
amend put’’ takes
4. Amend and previous ques- place.
tion
postpone
"
commit
In the first class, where the previous question
is first moved, the effect is peculiar; for it not
only prevents the after motion to postpone or
[232]
§ 449
commit from being put to question before it, but

also from being put after it; for if the previous
question be decided affirmatively, to wit, that
the main question shall now be put, it would of
course be against the decision to postpone or
commit; and if it be decided negatively, to wit,
that the main question shall not now be put,
this puts the House out of possession of the
main question, and consequently there is noth-
ing before them to postpone or commit. So that
neither voting for nor against the previous ques-
tion will enable the advocates for postponing or
committing to get at their object. Whether it
may be amended shall be examined hereafter.
Although clause 4 of rule XVI now governs the priority of motions, these
provisions of the Manual remain of interest because of the parliamentary
theory they present.
Second class. If postponement be decided af-

§ 449. General firmatively, the proposition is re-
principles of priority
of motions. moved from before the House, and
consequently there is no ground for
the previous question, commitment or amend-
ment; but if decided negatively (that it shall not
be postponed), the main question may then be
suppressed by the previous question, or may be
committed, or amended.
The previous question is used now for bringing a vote on the main ques-
tion and not for suppressing it.
The third class is subject to the same observa-

tions as the second.
The fourth class. Amendment of the main
question first moved, and afterwards the pre-
[233]
§ 450
vious question, the question of amendment shall

be first put.
In present practice of the House the question on the previous question
would be put first, and being decided affirmatively would force a vote on
the amendment and then on the main question.
Amendment and postponement competing,

postponement is first put, as the equivalent
proposition to adjourn the main question would
be in Parliament. The reason is that the ques-
tion for amendment is not suppressed by post-
poning or adjourning the main question, but re-
mains before the House whenever the main
question is resumed; and it might be that the oc-
casion for other urgent business might go by,
and be lost by length of debate on the amend-
ment, if the House had it not in their power to
postpone the whole subject.
Amendment and commitment. The question
for committing, though last moved shall be first
put; because, in truth, it facilitates and be-
friends the motion to amend. Scobell is express:
‘‘On motion to amend a bill, anyone may not-
withstanding move to commit it, and the ques-
tion for commitment shall be first put.’’ Scob.,
46.
These principles of priority of privileged motions are recognized in the
House, and are provided for by clause 4 of rule XVI.
We have hitherto considered the case of two or

more of the privileged questions
§ 450. Applications of
the previous question
to debatablecontending for privilege between
themselves, when both are moved
secondary and
privileged motions.
on the original or main question;
but now let us suppose one of them to be moved,
[234]
§ 451
not on the original primary question, but on the

secondary one, e.g.:
Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or
amend the main question, and that it be moved
to suppress that motion by putting a previous
question on it. This is not allowed, because it
would embarrass questions too much to allow
them to be piled on one another several stories
high; and the same result may be had in a more
simple way—by deciding against the postpone-
ment, commitment, or amendment. 2. Hats., 81,
2, 3, 4.
Although the general principle that one secondary or privileged motion
should not be applied to another is generally recognized in the House,
the entire change in the nature of the previous question (V, 5445) from
a means of postponing a matter to a means of compelling an immediate
vote, makes obsolete the parliamentary rule. Because the motions to post-
pone, commit, and amend are all debatable, the modern previous question
of course applies to them (clause 1 of rule XIX).
Suppose a motion for the previous question, or

commitment or amendment of the
§ 451. Motion to
postpone not
main question, and that it be then
applicable to other
moved to postpone the motion for

secondary motions.
the previous question, or for commitment or

amendment of the main question. 1. It would be
absurd to postpone the previous question, com-
mitment, or amendment, alone, and thus sepa-
rate the appendage from its principal; yet it
must be postponed separately from its original,
if at all; because the eighth rule of the Senate
says that when a main question is before the
House no motion shall be received but to com-
mit, amend, or pre-question the original ques-
tion, which is the parliamentary doctrine also.
[235]
§ 452–§ 453
Therefore the motion to postpone the secondary

motion for the previous question, or for commit-
ting or amending, can not be received. 2. This is
a piling of questions one on another; which, to
avoid embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The
same result may be had more simply by voting
against the previous question, commitment, or
amendment.
Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for
the previous question, or to postpone or amend.
The first, second, and third reasons, before stat-
ed, all hold against this.
The principles of this paragraph are in harmony with the practice of
the House, which provides further that a motion to suspend the rules may
not be postponed (V, 5322).
Suppose an amendment moved to a motion for

the previous question. Answer: The
§ 452. The motion to
amend not applicable
previous question can not be
to the previous
question.
amended. Parliamentary usage, as
well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed its
form to be, ‘‘Shall the main question be now
put?’’—i.e., at this instant; and as the present
instant is but one, it can admit of no modifica-
tion. To change it to to-morrow, or any other mo-
ment, is without example and without utility.
* * *
Although the nature of the previous question has entirely changed, yet
the principle of the parliamentary law applies to the new form.
* * * But suppose a motion to amend a mo-

§ 453. Motion to amend tion for postponement, as to one
applicable to motions
to postpone or refer. day instead of another, or to a spe-
cial instead of an indefinite time.
The useful character of amendment gives it a
[236]
§ 454–§ 455
privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and

privileged motion; that is, we may amend a post-
ponement of a main question. So, we may amend
a commitment of a main question, as by adding,
for example, ‘‘with instructions to inquire,’’ &c.
* * *
This principle is recognized in the practice of the House (V, 5521).
* * * In like manner, if an amendment be

moved to an amendment, it is ad-
§ 454. Amendment in
the third degree not
in order. mitted; but it would not be admit-
ted in another degree, to wit, to
amend an amendment to an amendment of a
main question. This would lead to too much em-
barrassment. The line must be drawn some-
where, and usage has drawn it after the amend-
ment to the amendment. The same result must
be sought by deciding against the amendment to
the amendment, and then moving it again as it
was wished to be amended. In this form it be-
comes only an amendment to an amendment.
This rule of the parliamentary law is considered fundamental in the
House (clause 6 of rule XVI).
[In filling a blank with a sum, the largest sum

shall be first put to the question, by
§ 455. Filling blanks;
and amendment to
numbers. the thirteenth rule of the Senate,
contrary to the rule of Parliament,
which privileges the smallest sum and longest
time. 5 Grey, 179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132,
133.] And this is considered to be not in the form
of an amendment to the question, but as alter-
native or successive originals. In all cases of
time or number, we must consider whether the
larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question
[237]
§ 455
to what day a postponement shall be, the num-

ber of a committee, amount of a fine, term of an
imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan,
or the terminus in quem in any other case; then
the question must begin a maximo. Or whether
the lesser includes the greater, as in questions
on the limitation of the rate of interest, on what
day the session shall be closed by adjournment,
on what day the next shall commence, when an
act shall commence or the terminus a quo in any
other case where the question must begin a
minimo; the object being not to begin at that ex-
treme which, and more, being within every
man’s wish, no one could negative it, and yet, if
he should vote in the affirmative, every question
for more would be precluded; but at that ex-
treme which would unite few, and then to ad-
vance or recede till you get to a number which
will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385.
‘‘The fair question in this case is not that to
which, and more, all will agree, but whether
there shall be addition to the question.’’ 1 Grey,
365.
The thirteenth rule of the Senate has been dropped. The House has no
rule on the subject other than this provision of the parliamentary law.
It is very rare for the House to fill blanks for numbers. When a number
in pending text is to be changed by amendment, the practice of the House
permits to be pending: the alternative number proposed in the amendment
to the text; a second alternative number as an amendment to the amend-
ment; a third as a substitute; and a fourth as an amendment to the sub-
stitute. Thus, if the pending text itself states a number, then five alter-
native numbers may be pending simultaneously. With respect to a concur-
rent resolution on the budget (which is considered as read and open to
amendment at any point and to which amendments must be mathemati-
cally consistent under clause 10 of rule XVIII), adoption of a perfecting
amendment changing several figures precludes further amendment merely
changing those figures, but does not preclude more comprehensive amend-
[238]
§ 456–§ 458
ments changing other portions of the resolution that have not been amend-
ed as well (Apr. 27, 1977, p. 12485). In recent practice an amount in an
appropriation bill has been changed by inserting a parenthetical ‘‘increased
by’’ or ‘‘decreased by’’ after the amount rather than by directly changing
the number.
Another exception to the rule of priority is

when a motion has been made to
§ 456. Priority of
amendments over
strike out, or agree to, a paragraph.
motions to strike or
agree.
Motions to amend it are to be put to
the question before a vote is taken on striking
out or agreeing to the whole paragraph.
In the House the principle that a text should be perfected before a ques-
tion is taken on striking it, and that an amendment should be perfected
before agreeing to it, is well established. But in considering bills, even
by paragraphs, the House does not agree to the paragraphs severally; but
after amending one passes to the next, and the question on agreeing is
taken only on the whole bill by the several votes on engrossment and pas-
sage.
But there are several questions which, being

§ 457. Incidental incidental to every one, will take
questions, like points
of order, that place of every one, privileged or not;
intervene during
consideration of the
to wit, a question of order arising
main question. out of any other question must be
decided before that question. 2
Hats., 88.
This principle governs the procedure of the House, but a question of
order arising after a motion for the previous question must be decided
without debate (clause 1 of rule XIX).
A matter of privilege arising out of any ques-
tion, or from a quarrel between two
§ 458. Matters of
privilege as
Members, or any other cause, su-
intervening questions.
persedes the consideration of the

original question, and must be first disposed of.
2 Hats., 88.
Rule IX and the practice thereunder, confirm and amplify the principles
of this provision of the parliamentary law.
[239]
§ 459–§ 462
§ 459. Intervention of Reading papers relative to the

questions relating to
reading of papers.
question before the House. This
question must be put before the
principal one. 2 Hats., 88.
This provision formerly applied in the House to the reading of papers
other than those on which the House was to vote. That was under an
earlier form of clause 6 of rule XVII, which now applies only to the use
of exhibits in debate. For a history of the former rule on reading papers
and an explanation of the earlier practice, see §§ 963–965, infra.
Leave asked to withdraw a motion. The rule of

Parliament being that a motion
§ 460. Withdrawal of
motions.
made and seconded is in the posses-
sion of the House, and can not be withdrawn
without leave, the very terms of the rule imply
that leave may be given, and, consequently, may
be asked and put to the question.
The House does not vote on the withdrawal of motions, but provides
by clause 2 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII the conditions under
which a Member may of right withdraw a motion.
SEC. XXXIV—THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
When any question is before the House, any

§ 461. The previous Member may move a previous ques-
question of
Parliament. tion, ‘‘Whether that question (called
the main question) shall now be
put?’’ If it pass in the affirmative, then the main
question is to be put immediately, and no man
may speak anything further to it, either to add
or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.
The previous question being moved and sec-
§ 462. Manner of onded, the question from the Chair
putting the previous
question. shall be, ‘‘Shall the main question
be now put?’’ and if the nays pre-
vail, the main question shall not then be put.
[240]
§ 463
This kind of question is understood by Mr.

§ 463. History, use, Hatsell to have been introduced in
etc., of the previous
question of 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane
Parliament.
introduced it. 2 Grey, 113, 114; 3
Grey, 384. When the question was put in this
form, ‘‘Shall the main question be put?’’ a deter-
mination in the negative suppressed the main
question during the session; but since the words
‘‘now put’’ are used, they exclude it for the
present only; formerly, indeed, only till the
present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43, but now for
that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114.
Before the question ‘‘Whether the main ques-
tion shall now be put?’’ any person might for-
merly have spoken to the main question, be-
cause otherwise he would be precluded from
speaking to it at all. Mem. in Hakew., 28.
The proper occasion for the previous question
is when a subject is brought forward of a deli-
cate nature as to high personages, &c., or the
discussion of which may call forth observations
which might be of injurious consequences. Then
the previous question is proposed, and in the
modern usage the discussion of the main ques-
tion is suspended and the debate confined to the
previous question. The use of it has been ex-
tended abusively to other cases, but in these it
has been an embarrassing procedure. Its uses
would be as well answered by other more simple
parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not
be favored, but restricted within as narrow lim-
its as possible.
[241]
§ 465–§ 466
As explained in connection with clause 1 of rule XIX, the House has

changed entirely the old use of the previous question (V, 5445).
SEC. XXXV—AMENDMENTS
§ 465. Right of the On an amendment being moved,

Member who has
spoken to the main
a Member who had spoken to the
question to speak to main question may speak again to
an amendment.
the amendment. Scob., 23.
This parliamentary rule applies in the House, where the hour rule of
debate (clause 2 of rule XVII) has been in force for many years. A Member
who has spoken an hour to the main question, may speak another hour
to an amendment (V, 4994; VIII, 2449).
If an amendment be proposed inconsistent

with one already agreed to, it is a
§ 466. The Speaker not
to decide as to
fit ground for its rejection by the
consistency of a
House, but not within the com-
proposed amendment
with one already
agreed to. petence of the Speaker to suppress
as if it were against order. For were
he permitted to draw questions of consistence
within the vortex or order, he might usurp a
negative on important modifications, and sup-
press, instead of subserving, the legislative will.
The practice of the House follows and extends the principle set forth
by Jefferson. Thus it has been held that the fact that a proposed amend-
ment is inconsistent with the text or embodies a proposition already voted
(II, 1328–1336; VIII, 2834), or would in effect change a provision of text
to which both Houses have agreed (II, 1335; V, 6183–6185), or is contained
in substance in a later portion of the bill (II, 1327), is a matter to be passed
on by the House rather than by the Speaker. It is for the House rather
than the Speaker to decide on the legislative or legal effect of a proposition
(II, 1323, 1324; VI, 254; VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841), and the change of
a single word in the text of a proposition may be sufficient to prevent
the Speaker from ruling it out of order as one already disposed of by the
House (II, 1274). The principle has been the subject of conflicting decisions,
from which may be deduced the rule that the Chair may not rule out the
proposition unless it presents a substantially identical proposition (VI, 256;
VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).
A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature of a
substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the original bill if
[242]
§ 467–§ 468
the amendment is first rejected or if the amendment in the nature of a

substitute as perfected is rejected (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33075). Rejection of
an amendment consisting of two sections does not preclude one of those
sections being subsequently offered as a separate amendment (July 15,
1981, p. 15898), and the rejection of several amendments considered en
bloc does not preclude their being offered separately at a subsequent time
(Deschler, ch. 27, § 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932). A point of order against
an amendment to a substitute does not lie merely because its adoption
would have the same effect as the adoption of a pending amendment to
the original amendment and would render the substitute as amended iden-
tical to the original amendment as amended (May 4, 1983, p. 11059).
Amendments may be made so as totally to

§ 467. The alter the nature of the proposition;
parliamentary law
and it is a way of getting rid of a
and the Rules of the
proposition by making it bear a

House as to germane
amendments.
sense different from what it was in-
tended by the movers, so that they vote against
it themselves. 2 Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill
may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, on the
words, ‘‘Be it enacted,’’ etc. 1 Grey, 190, 192.
This was the rule of Parliament, which did not require an amendment
to be germane (V, 5802, 5825). But the House from its first organization,
has by rule required that an amendment should be germane to the pending
proposition (clause 7 of rule XVI).
If it be proposed to amend by leaving out cer-

§ 468. The amendment tain words, it may be moved, as an
to strike certain
words of a bill. amendment to this amendment, to
leave out a part of the words of the
amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them
in the bill. 2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary
question is, always, whether the words shall
stand part of the bill.
In the House the question herein described is never put, but is always
whether the words shall be stricken; and if there is a desire that certain
of the words included in the amendment remain part of the bill, it is ex-
pressed, not by amending the amendment, but by a preferential perfecting
amendment to strike from the specified words in the text of the bill a
portion of them. If this is carried that portion of the specified words is
[243]
§ 469
stricken from the bill and the vote then recurs on the original amendment
(V, 5770). Where a motion to strike an entire title of a bill is pending,
it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a motion
to strike a lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment is voted
on first (June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike certain
words is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike a portion of those
words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike certain words in a para-
graph, it is not in order to amend those words by including with them
other words of the paragraph (V, 5768; VIII, 2848; June 2, 1976, pp. 16208–
10). It is in order to insert by way of amendment a paragraph similar
(but not actually identical) to one already stricken by amendment (V, 5760;
Sept. 2, 1976, pp. 28939–58).
When it is proposed to amend by inserting a

§ 469. Principles as to paragraph, or part of one, the
perfecting before
inserting or striking. friends of the paragraph may make
it as perfect as they can by amend-
ments before the question is put for inserting it.
If it be received, it cannot be amended afterward
in the same stage, because the House has, on a
vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner,
if it is proposed to amend by striking out a para-
graph, the friends of the paragraph are first to
make it as perfect as they can by amendments,
before the question is put for striking it out. If
on the question it be retained, it cannot be
amended afterward, because a vote against
striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to
it in that form.
These principles are recognized as in force in the House, with the excep-
tion that clause 5(c) of rule XVI specifically provides that the rejection
of a motion to strike shall preclude neither amendment nor motion to strike
and insert. However, after an amendment to insert has been agreed to,
the matter inserted ordinarily may not then be amended (V, 5761–5763;
VIII, 2852) in any way that would change its text. Where a special order
of business provides that an amendment inserting a provision in the bill
be considered as adopted, an amendment to strike that provision is not
in order (May 23, 2002, pp. 8920–24). However, an amendment may be
added at the end (V, 5759, 5764, 5765; Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41740; Oct. 1,
1974, p. 33364), even if the perfecting amendment that was adopted struck
[244]
§ 469
out all after the short title of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
and inserted a new text (May 16, 1979, p. 11480). Although an amendment
that has been adopted to an amendment (in the nature of a substitute)
may not be further amended, another amendment adding language at the
end of the amendment may still be offered (June 10, 1976, pp. 17368–
75, 17381; May 16, 1984, pp. 12566–67), and the Chair will not rule on
the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment (June 10,
1976, p. 17381).
Although it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending portion
of the bill that not only changes a provision already amended but also
changes an unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely
to amend portions of the bill that have been changed by amendment (Mar.
11, 1999, p. 4335), or to amend unamended portions that have been passed
in the reading and are no longer open to amendment (July 12, 1983, p.
18771), or to amend a figure already amended (Deschler, ch. 27, § 33.2;
July 17, 1995, p. 19186), even if also changing other matter not already
amended, where drafted as though the earlier amendment had not been
adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. 8025; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8110; Mar. 16, 1995,
p. 8112; July 17, 1995, p. 19196). A point of order that a pending amend-
ment proposes to change portions of the bill that have been changed by
earlier amendment may be made after a unanimous-consent request to
modify the amendment has been disposed of but before debate has begun
(Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4335). Where the vote on an amendment to strike a
section and insert new language is postponed by the chair of the Committee
of the Whole, an amendment to strike the same section and insert different
language is in order; and if both amendments are adopted, the second
amendment adopted supersedes the first and is the only one reported to
the House (Aug. 6, 1998, p. 19125).
When it is proposed to perfect a paragraph, a motion to strike it, if al-
ready pending, must remain in abeyance until the amendments to perfect
have been moved and voted on (V, 5758; VIII, 2860; May 5, 1992, p. 10110;
Oct. 12, 1995, p. 27816; July 27, 1999, p. 18074). If further proceedings
are postponed on the perfecting amendment, debate may continue on the
underlying motion to strike (July 27, 1999). While amendments are pend-
ing to a section, a motion to strike it may not be offered (V, 5771; VIII,
2861; Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995, p. 20299). The motion to
strike may be voted on (if already pending) or subsequently offered after
disposition of the perfecting amendment, so long as the provision sought
to be stricken has not been rewritten entirely (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963;
July 25, 1995, p. 20299). While a motion to strike is pending, it is in order
to offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken
(Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8777); such an amendment, which is in the first degree,
may be amended by a substitute, and amendments to the substitute are
also in order (Oct. 19, 1983, p. 28283), and such perfecting amendment,
if agreed to when voted on first, remains part of the bill if the motion
to strike is then rejected (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 28123). When a motion to
[245]
§ 470–§ 471
strike a paragraph is pending and the paragraph is perfected by an amend-

ment, striking and inserting an entire new text, the pending motion to
strike must fall, because it would not be in order to strike exactly what
has been just voted to insert (V, 5792; VIII, 2854; July 12, 1951, p. 8090;
Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29835; Aug. 5, 1986, p. 19059; May 18, 1988, p. 11404;
Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8781). A motion to strike and insert a portion of a pending
section is not in order as a substitute for a motion to strike the section,
but may be offered as a perfecting amendment to the section and is voted
on first, subject to being eliminated by subsequent adoption of the motion
to strike (July 16, 1981, p. 16057).
When it is moved to amend by striking out

certain words and inserting others,
§ 470. Reading the
motion and putting
the manner of stating the question
the question on a
is first to read the whole passage to

motion to strike and
insert.
be amended as it stands at present,
then the words proposed to be struck out, next
those to be inserted, and lastly the whole pas-
sage as it will be when amended. And the ques-
tion, if desired, is then to be divided, and put
first on striking out. If carried, it is next on in-
serting the words proposed. If that be lost, it
may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.
Clause 5(c) of rule XVI provides that the motion to strike and insert
is not divisible. As to the manner of stating the question, the Clerk reads
only the words to be stricken and the words to be inserted.
A motion is made to amend by striking out

certain words and inserting others
repetition of motions
in their place, which is negatived.
to strike and insert.
Then it is moved to strike out the

same words, and to insert others of a tenor en-
tirely different from those first proposed. It is
negatived. Then it is moved to strike out the
same words and insert nothing, which is agreed
to. All this is admissible, because to strike out
and insert A is one proposition. To strike out
and insert B is a different proposition. And to
[246]
§ 472–§ 473
strike out and insert nothing is still different.

And the rejection of one proposition does not
preclude the offering a different one. Nor would
it change the case were the first motion divided
by putting the question first on striking out, and
that negatived; for, as putting the whole motion
to the question at once would not have pre-
cluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.
As to Jefferson’s supposition that the principle would hold good in case
of division of the motion to strike and insert it is not necessary to inquire,
because clause 5(c) of rule XVI forbids division of that motion. In a footnote
Jefferson expressed himself as follows: ‘‘In the case of a division of the
question, and a decision against striking out, I advanced doubtingly the
opinion here expressed. I find no authority either way, and I know it may
be viewed under a different aspect. It may be thought that, having decided
separately not to strike the passage, the same question for striking out
cannot be put over again, though with a view to a different insertion. Still
I think it more reasonable and convenient to consider the striking out
and insertion as forming one proposition, but should readily yield to any
evidence that the contrary is the practice in Parliament.’’ Where two
amendments proposing inconsistent motions to strike and insert a pending
section are considered as separate first degree amendments (not one as
a substitute for the other) before either is finally disposed of under a special
procedure permitting the Chair to postpone requests for a recorded vote,
the Chair’s order of voting on the matter as unfinished business determines
which amendment (if both were adopted) would be reported to the House
(Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098–107).
The principle set forth by Jefferson as to repetition of the motion to
§ 472. Application of
strike prevails in the House, where it has been held
the motion to strike. in order, after the failure of a motion to strike certain
words, to move to strike a portion of those words (V,
5769; VIII, 2858). When a bill is under consideration by paragraphs, a
motion to strike can apply only to the paragraph under consideration (V,
5774).
But if it had been carried affirmatively to

§ 473. Effect of strike out the words and to insert
affirmative vote on
motion to strike and A, it could not afterward be per-
insert.
mitted to strike out A and insert B.
The mover of B should have notified, while the
insertion of A was under debate, that he would
[247]
§ 474–§ 475
move to insert B; in which case those who pre-

ferred it would join in rejecting A.
This principle controls the practice of the House (July 17, 1985, p. 19444;
July 18, 1985, p. 19649; Deschler, ch. 27, § 31.14).
After A is inserted, however, it may be moved

§ 474. Conditions of to strike out a portion of the origi-
striking an
amendment already nal paragraph, comprehending A,
agreed to.
provided the coherence to be struck
out be so substantial as to make this effectively
a different proposition; for then it is resolved
into the common case of striking out a para-
graph after amending it. Nor does anything for-
bid a new insertion, instead of A and its
coherence.
Although it is not in order to move to strike a provision inserted by
amendment (Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26957), a motion to strike more than that
provision inserted would be in order (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11536). But an
amendment to strike the pending title of a bill and re-insert all sections
of that title except one is not in order if that section has previously been
amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).
In Senate, January 25, 1798, a motion to post-

pone until the second Tuesday in
§ 475. Amendments
filling blanks as to
time. February some amendments pro-
posed to the Constitution; the words
‘‘until the second Tuesday in February’’ were
struck out by way of amendment. Then it was
moved to add, ‘‘until the first day of June.’’ Ob-
jected that it was not in order, as the question
should be first put on the longest time; there-
fore, after a shorter time decided against, a
longer cannot be put to question. It was an-
swered that this rule takes place only in filling
blanks for time. But when a specific time stands
part of a motion, that may be struck out as well
[248]
§ 476
as any other part of the motion; and when

struck out, a motion may be received to insert
any other. In fact, it is not until they are struck
out, and a blank for the time thereby produced,
that the rule can begin to operate, by receiving
all the propositions for different times, and put-
ting the questions successively on the longest.
Otherwise it would be in the power of the mover
by inserting originally a short time, to preclude
the possibility of a longer; for till the short time
is struck out, you cannot insert a longer; and if,
after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it
cannot be done at all. Suppose the first motion
had been made to amend by striking out ‘‘the
second Tuesday in February,’’ and inserting in-
stead thereof ‘‘the first of June,’’ it would have
been regular, then, to divide the question, by
proposing first the question to strike out, and
then that to insert. Now, this is precisely the ef-
fect of the present proceeding; only, instead of
one motion and two questions, there are two mo-
tions and two questions to effect it—the motion
being divided as well as the question.
The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House (V,
5763; Aug. 16, 1961, p. 16059), but in one case wherein words embodying
a distinct substantive proposition had been agreed to as an amendment
to a paragraph, it was held not in order to strike a part of the words
of this amendment with other words of the paragraph (V, 5766).
The motion to strike and insert may not be divided in the House (clause
5(c) of rule XVI).
When the matter contained in two bills might

be better put into one, the manner
§ 476. Joining and
dividing bills.
is to reject the one and incorporate
its matter into another bill by way of amend-
[249]
§ 477–§ 479
ment. So if the matter of one bill would be better

distributed into two, any part may be struck out
by way of amendment, and put into a new bill.
* * *
In the modern practice of the House each bill comes before the House
by itself; and if it were proposed to join one bill to another it would be
done by offering the text of the one as an amendment to the other, without
disturbing the first bill in its place on the calendar. The Committee on
Rules may report a special order providing for consideration of two bills
and, after separate passage of each, ‘‘linking’’ the two by adding the text
of the second to the engrossment of the first and tabling the separate
version of the second (e.g., June 16, 1999, p. 13080).
* * * If a section is to be transposed, a ques-

§ 477. Transposition of tion must be put on striking it out
the sections of a bill.
where it stands and another for in-
serting it in the place desired.
This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 5775, 5776).
A bill passed by the one House with blanks.

§ 478. Filling blanks These may be filled up by the other
left by the other
House. by way of amendments, returned to
the first as such, and passed 3
Hats., 83.
The number prefixed to the section of a bill, be
§ 479. Clerk amends merely a marginal indication, and
the section numbers
of a bill. no part of the text of the bill, the
Clerk regulates that—the House or
committee is only to amend the text.
In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other internal
references are considered as part of the text that may be altered by amend-
ment. The House sometimes authorizes the Clerk to make appropriate
changes in section numbers, paragraphs and punctuation, and cross ref-
erences when preparing the engrossment of the bill. Such a request is
properly made in the House, following passage of the bill (Apr. 29, 1969,
p. 10753).
[250]
§ 480–§ 481
SEC. XXXVI—DIVISION OF THE QUESTION
If a question contain more parts than one, it

§ 480. Parliamentary may be divided into two or more
law for division of the
question. questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But
not as the right of an individual
member, but with the consent of the House. For
who is to decide whether a question is com-
plicated or not—where it is complicated—into
how many propositions it may be divided? The
fact is, that the only mode of separating a com-
plicated question is by moving amendments to
it; and these must be decided by the House, on
a question, unless the House orders it to be di-
vided; as, on the question, December 2, 1640,
making void the election of the knights for
Worcester, on a motion it was resolved to make
two questions of it, to wit, one on each knight.
2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several
names in a question, they may be divided and
put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17,
on an objection that a question was complicated,
it was separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.
The House, by clause 5 of rule XVI and the practice thereunder, has
entitled a procedure differing materially from that above set forth. Al-
though a resolution electing Members to committees is not divisible (clause
5 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions containing several names may
be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).
The soundness of these observations will be

evident from the embarrassments
§ 481. Jefferson’s
discussion of division
produced by the XVIIIth rule of the
of the question.
Senate, which says, ‘‘if the question

in debate contains several points, any member
may have the same divided.’’
[251]
§ 481
1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-com-

mittee. To a section and proviso in the original,
had been added two new provisos by way of
amendment. On a motion to strike out the sec-
tion as amended, the question was desired to be
divided. To do this it must be put first on strik-
ing out either the former proviso, or some dis-
tinct member of the section. But when nothing
remains but the last member of the section and
the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put
the last member to question by itself, for the
provisos might thus be left standing alone as ex-
ceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away;
or the new provisos might be left to a second
question, after having been decided on once be-
fore at the same reading, which is contrary to
rule. But the question must be on striking out
the last member of the section as amended. This
sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and
relieves from inconsistence. A question to be di-
visible must comprehend points so distinct and
entire that one of them being taken away, the
other may stand entire. But a proviso or excep-
tion, without an enacting clause, does not con-
tain an entire point or proposition.
May 31.—The same bill being before the Sen-
ate. There was a proviso that the bill should not
extend—1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To
any person to whom the President should give a
passport; nor, 3. To any alien merchant con-
forming himself to such regulations as the Presi-
dent shall prescribe; and a division of the ques-
tion into its simplest elements was called for. It
[252]
§ 482
was divided into four parts, the 4th taking in

the words ‘‘conforming himself,’’ &c. It was ob-
jected that the words ‘‘any alien merchant,’’
could not be separated from their modifying
words, ‘‘conforming,’’ &c., because these words, if
left by themselves, contain no substantive idea,
will make no sense. But admitting that the divi-
sions of a paragraph into separate questions
must be so made as that each part may stand by
itself, yet the House having, on the question, re-
tained the two first divisions, the words ‘‘any
alien merchant’’ may be struck out, and their
modifying words will then attach themselves to
the preceding description of persons, and become
a modification of that description.
When a question is divided, after the question
§ 482. Division of on the 1st member, the 2d is open
question as related to
debate or amendment. to debate and amendment; because
it is a known rule that a person

may rise and speak at any time before the ques-
tion has been completely decided, by putting the
negative as well as the affirmative side. But the
question is not completely put when the vote has
been taken on the first member only. One-half
the question, both affirmative and negative, re-
mains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25,
1795. The same decision by President Adams.
Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an amend-
ment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions of the
amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded remains
open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785). However,
where neither portion of a divided question remains open to further debate
or amendment, the question may be put first on the portion identified
by the demand for division and then on the remainder (June 8, 1995, p.
15302).
[253]
§ 483
SEC. XXXVII—COEXISTING QUESTIONS
It may be asked whether the House can be in

§ 483. Fundamental possession of two motions or propo-
principles as to
coexisting questions. sitions at the same time? so that,
one of them being decided, the
other goes to question without being moved
anew? The answer must be special. When a
question is interrupted by a vote of adjourn-
ment, it is thereby removed from before the
House, and does not stand ipso facto before them
at their next meeting, but must come forward in
the usual way. So, when it is interrupted by the
order of the day. Such other privileged questions
also as dispose of the main question (e.g., the
previous question, postponement, or commit-
ment), remove it from before the House. But it
is only suspended by a motion to amend, to
withdraw, to read papers, or by a question of
order or privilege, and stands again before the
House when these are decided. None but the
class of privileged questions can be brought for-
ward while there is another question before the
House, the rule being that when a motion has
been made and seconded, no other can be re-
ceived except it be a privileged one.
The principles of this provision must, of course, be viewed in the light
of a more highly perfected order of business than existed in Jefferson’s
time (rule XIV). The motion to withdraw is not known in the practice of
the House, not being among the motions enumerated in clause 4 of rule
XVI, but a motion before the House may be withdrawn by the mover thereof
before a decision is reached (clause 2 of rule XVI).
[254]
§ 484–§ 485
SEC. XXXVIII—EQUIVALENT QUESTIONS
If, on a question for rejection, a bill be re-

§ 484. Former practice tained, it passes, of course, to its
as to rejection and
second reading of next reading. Hakew., 141; Scob.,
bills.
42. And a question for a second
reading, determined negatively, is a rejection
without further question. 4 Grey, 149. And see
Elsynge’s Memor., 42, in what case questions are
to be taken for rejection.
The House has abandoned the question ‘‘Shall the bill be rejected?’’ (IV,
3391), and the question is now taken in accordance with clause 8 of rule
XVI. A vote is not taken on the second reading, the first test coming in
the modern practice of the House on the engrossment and third reading.
Where questions are perfectly equivalent, so

§ 485. Equivalent that the negative of the one
questions in general.
amounts to the affirmative of the
other, and leaves no other alternative, the deci-
sion of the one concludes necessarily the other.
4 Grey, 157. Thus the negative of striking out
amounts to the affirmative of agreeing; and
therefore to put a question on agreeing after
that on striking out, would be to put the same
question in effect twice over. Not so in questions
of amendments between the two Houses. A mo-
tion to recede being negatived, does not amount
to a positive vote to insist, because there is an-
other alternative, to wit, to adhere.
The principles set forth in this paragraph are recognized by the practice
of the House; but Jefferson’s use of the motion to strike as an illustration
is no longer justified, because the practice of the House under clause 5(c)
of rule XVI does not permit the negative of the motion to strike to be
equivalent to the affirmative of agreeing.
[255]
§ 486–§ 487
A bill originating in one House is passed by

§ 486. Equivalent the other with an amendment. A
questions on
amendments between motion in the originating House to
the Houses.
agree to the amendment is
negatived. Does there result from this a vote of
disagreement, or must the question on disagree-
ment be expressly voted? The question respect-
ing amendments from another House are—1st,
to agree; 2d, disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist;
5th, adhere.
In the House and the Senate the order of precedence of motions is as
given in the parliamentary law, and the motions take precedence in that
order without regard to the order in which they are moved (V, 6270, 6324).
But a motion to amend an amendment of the other House has precedence
of the motion to agree or disagree either before the stage of disagreement
has been reached or after the House has receded from its disagreement
(V, 6164, 6169–6171; VIII, 3203) even after the previous question has been
ordered on both motions before the question is divided (Feb. 12, 1923, p.
3512). See also the discussion in § 525, infra. But it has been held that
when the previous question has been demanded or ordered on a motion
to concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 5488). The motion to
refer also takes precedence of the motions to agree or disagree (V, 6172–
6174), but the demanding or ordering of the previous question does not
prevent a motion to refer (V, 5575). The motion to refer takes precedence
of the motions to agree or disagree and, under clause 2 of rule XIX is
in order pending a demand for or after the ordering of the previous ques-
tion, before the stage of disagreement has been reached (V, 5575, 6172–
6174), but not after the stage of disagreement when the most preferential
motion tending to bring the two Houses together is already pending (Speak-
er Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887).
1st. To agree; 2d. To disagree.—Either of these

concludes the other necessarily, for
§ 487. The motions to
agree and disagree as
the positive of either is exactly the
related to motions to
amend.
equivalent to the negative of the
other, and no other alternative remains. On ei-
ther motion amendments to the amendment may
be proposed; e.g., if it be moved to disagree,
those who are for the amendment have a right
[256]
§ 488–§ 490
to propose amendments, and to make it as per-

fect as they can, before the question of dis-
agreeing is put.
3d. To recede.—You may then either insist or
§ 488. No equivalent adhere.
questions on motions
to recede, insist, and 4th. To insist.—You may then ei-
adhere.
ther recede or adhere.
5th. To adhere.—You may then either recede
or insist.
Consequently the negative of these is not
equivalent to a positive vote the other way. It
does not raise so necessary an implication as
may authorize the Secretary by inference to
enter another vote; for two alternatives still re-
main, either of which may be adopted by the
House.
Under the earlier practice in the House it was held that voting down
the motion to recede and concur was tantamount to insistence but not
the equivalent of adherence (Speaker Clark, July 2, 1918, p. 8648). But
the more recent practice is that when the House disagrees to a motion
to recede and concur in a Senate amendment some further action must
be taken to dispose of the amendment (Speaker Bankhead, July 9, 1937,
p. 7007; Speaker McCormack, Sept. 19, 1962, p. 19945) and the question
may recur on a pending motion to insist or such a motion is then enter-
tained from the floor.
SEC. XXXIX—THE QUESTION
The question is to be put first on

§ 489. Putting the
question.
the affirmative, and then on the
negative side.
Clause 6 of rule I provides more fully for putting the question.
After the Speaker has put the affirmative part

§ 490. Effect of putting of the question, any Member who
the question in ending
debate. has not spoken before to the ques-
tion may rise and speak before the
[257]
§ 491–§ 492
negative be put; because it is no full question till

the negative part be put. Scob., 23; 2 Hats., 73.
After the Chair has put the affirmative part of the question, any Member
who seeks to debate the matter or offer a motion may be recognized (V,
5925; June 22, 2006, pp. 12298, 12299), and such recognition is not subject
to appeal (June 22, 2006, p. 12299). On one occasion, the Chair refused
to entertain a motion to lay on the table after putting the affirmative part
of the pending question where the Chair had affirmed the admissibility
of that motion before putting the main question, and that motion neverthe-
less was not then offered (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512). Where not pertinent
to the pending parliamentary situation, a parliamentary inquiry regarding
whether the Chair heard the ayes on a prematurely-commenced vote by
voice was not entertained (June 22, 2006, p. 12299).
But in small matters, and which are of course,

§ 491. Informal putting such as receiving petitions, reports,
of the question.
withdrawing motions, reading pa-
pers, &c., the Speaker most commonly supposes
the consent of the House where no objection is
expressed, and does not give them the trouble of
putting the question formally. Scob., 22; 2 Hats.,
79, 2, 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.
SEC. XL—BILLS, THIRD READING
To prevent bills from being passed by surprise,

§ 492. Obsolete the House, by a standing order, di-
requirements as to
reading and passage rects that they shall not be put on
of bills.
their passage before a fixed hour,
naming one at which the house is commonly full.
Hakew., 153.
The usage of the Senate is not to put bills on
their passage till noon.
A bill reported and passed to the third read-
ing, cannot on that day be read the third time
and passed; because this would be to pass on
two readings in the same day.
[258]
§ 493
At the third reading the Clerk reads the bill

§ 493. Obsolete and delivers it to the Speaker, who
to third reading. states the title, that it is the third
time of reading the bill, and that
the question will be whether it shall pass. For-
merly the Speaker, or those who prepared a bill,
prepared also a breviate or summary statement
of its contents, which the Speaker read when he
declared the state of the bill, at the several read-
ings. Sometimes, however, he read the bill itself,
especially on its passage. Hakew., 136, 137, 153;
Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, at
the third reading, states the whole contents of
the bill verbatim, only, instead of reading the
formal parts, ‘‘Be it enacted,’’ &c., he states that
‘‘preamble recites so and so—the 1st section en-
acts that, &c.; the 2d section enacts,’’ &c.
But in the Senate of the United States, both
of these formalities are dispensed with; the
breviate presenting but an imperfect view of the
bill, and being capable of being made to present
a false one; and the full statement being a use-
less waste of time, immediately after a full read-
ing by the Clerk, and especially as every mem-
ber has a printed copy in his hand.
None of the restrictions are of effect in the modern practice of the House.
Clause 8 of rule XVI permits a bill to be read a third time and passed
on the same day, and it is in order to proceed with a bill at any time,
unless the absence of a quorum be shown.
In the House there is no practice justifying the presentation of an abbre-
viated summary; and the procedure on third reading is definitely pre-
scribed by clause 8 of rule XVI.
[259]
§ 494–§ 496
A bill on the third reading is not to be com-

mitted for the matter or body there-
§ 494. Committal of a
bill on third reading.
of, but to receive some particular
clause or proviso, it hath been sometimes suf-
fered, but as a thing very unusual. Hakew., 156.
Thus, 27 El., 1584, a bill was committed on the
third reading, having been formerly committed
on the second, but is declared not usual. D’Ewes,
337, col. 2; 414, col. 2.
In the House it is in order to commit a bill after the engrossment and
third reading if the previous question is not ordered (V, 5562); and by
clause 2 of rule XIX the House has preserved this opportunity to commit
even after the previous question has been ordered.
When an essential provision has been omitted,

rather than erase the bill and
§ 495. Obsolete
parliamentary
render it suspicious, they add a
practice as to riders.
clause on a separate paper, en-

grossed and called a rider, which is read and put
to the question three times. Elsynge’s Memo., 59;
6 Grey, 335; 1 Blackst., 183. For examples of rid-
ers, see 3 Hats., 121, 122, 124, 156. Every one
is at liberty to bring in a rider without asking
leave. 10 Grey, 52.
This practice is never followed in the House.
It is laid down, as a general rule, that amend-

§ 496. Obsolete ments proposed at the second read-
requirements as to
reading of ing shall be twice read, and those
amendments.
proposed at the third reading thrice
read; as also all amendments from the other
House. Town., col. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.
In the practice of the House, amendments, whether offered in the House
or coming from the other House, do not come under the rule requiring
different readings.
[260]
§ 497–§ 498
It is with great and almost invincible reluc-

tance that amendments are admit-
§ 497. Amendments
before the third
reading. ted at this reading, which occasion
erasures or interlineations. Some-
times a proviso has been cut off from a bill;
sometimes erased. 9 Grey, 513.
This is the proper stage for filling up blanks;
for if filled up before, and now altered by era-
sure, it would be peculiarly unsafe.
In the House bills are amended after the second reading (IV, 3392), and
before the engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VII, 1051, 1052) but
not afterwards. Under modern practice of the House, readings are governed
by clause 8 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII.
At this reading the bill is debated afresh, and

for the most part is more spoken to
§ 498. Debate in
relation to the third
reading. at this time than on any of the
former readings. Hakew., 153.
The debate on the question whether it should
be read a third time, has discovered to its
friends and opponents the arguments on which
each side relies, and which of these appear to
have influence with the House; they have had
time to meet them with new arguments, and to
put their old ones into new shapes. The former
vote has tried the strength of the first opinion,
and furnished grounds to estimate the issue;
and the question now offered for its passage is
the last occasion which is ever to be offered for
carrying or rejecting it.
In the House it is usual to debate a bill before and not after the engross-
ment and third reading, probably because of the frequent use of the pre-
vious question, which prevents all debate after it is ordered. When the
previous question is not ordered, debate may occur pending the vote on
passage.
[261]
§ 499–§ 501
When the debate is ended, the Speaker, hold-

§ 499. Putting the ing the bill in his hand, puts the
question on the
passage of a bill. question for its passage, by saying,
‘‘Gentlemen, all you who are of
opinion that this bill shall pass, say aye;’’ and
after the answer of the ayes, ‘‘All those of the
contrary opinion, say no.’’ Hakew., 154.
In the House the bill is usually in the hands of the Clerk. The Speaker
states that ‘‘The question is on the passage of the bill,’’ and puts the ques-
tion in the form prescribed by clause 6 of rule I.
After the bill is passed, there can

§ 500. Bills not altered
be no further alteration of it in any

after their passage.
point. Hakew., 159.

This principle controls the practice of the House. However, a bill may
be changed if the votes on passage, engrossment, and ordering the previous
question have been reconsidered. In addition, the Clerk may be authorized
to make changes in the engrossed copy by unanimous consent or by special
order of business. Title amendments are transacted following passage
(§ 512, infra).
SEC. XLI—DIVISION OF THE HOUSE
The affirmative and negative of the question

having been both put and an-
§ 501. Division of the
House after
swered, the Speaker declares
determination by
sound.
whether the yeas or nays have it by
the sound, if he be himself satisfied, and it
stands as the judgment of the House. But if he
be not himself satisfied which voice is the great-
er, or if before any other Member comes into the
House, or before any new motion made (for it is
too late after that), any Member shall arise and
declare himself dissatisfied with the Speaker’s
decision, then the Speaker is to divide the
House. Scob., 24; 2 Hats., 140.
[262]
§ 502
This practice is provided for in different language by clause 6 of rule

I.
When the House of Commons is divided, the

§ 502. Parliamentary one party goes forth, and the other
provisions as to
division, not remains in the House. This has
applicable in the
House.
made it important which go forth
and which remain; because the lat-
ter gain all the indolent, the indifferent, and in-
attentive. Their general rule, therefore, is that
those who give their vote for the preservation of
the orders of the House shall stay in, and those
who are for introducing any new matter or alter-
ation, or proceeding contrary to the established
course, are to go out. But this rule is subject to
many exceptions and modifications. 2 Hats., 134;
1 Rush., p. 3, fol. 92; Scob., 43, 52; Co., 12, 116;
D’Ewes, 505, col. 1; Mem. in Hakew., 25, 29.
The one party being gone forth, the Speaker
names two tellers from the affirmative and two
from the negative side, who first count those sit-
ting in the House and report the number to the
Speaker. Then they place themselves within the
door, two on each side, and count those who
went forth as they come in and report the num-
ber to the Speaker. Mem. in Hakew., 26.
In modern practice in the House of Commons, once the Chair determines
a sufficient request for a ‘‘division,’’ all Members leave the Chamber and
are recorded in the yes and no division lobbies. In the House of Representa-
tives, the provision in former clause 5 of rule I that provided for teller
votes was repealed by the 103d Congress. Under the former procedure
tellers took their place at the rear of the center aisle when named by the
Chair, and Members passed between them to be counted but not recorded
by name. Clause 1(b) of rule XX provides for taking a recorded vote by
means of the electronic voting system when supported by one-fifth of a
quorum.
[263]
§ 503–§ 505
§ 503. Correction of a A mistake in the report of the

vote by tellers after
the report.
tellers may be rectified after the re-
port made. 2 Hats., 145, note.
* * * * *
When it is proposed to take the vote by yeas
§ 504. Voting by yeas and nays, the President or Speaker
and nays.
states that ‘‘the question is wheth-
er, e.g., the bill shall pass—that it is proposed
that the yeas and nays shall be entered on the
journal. Those, therefore, who desire it will rise.’’
If he finds and declares that one-fifth have
risen, he then states that ‘‘those who are of opin-
ion that the bill shall pass are to answer in the
affirmative; those of the contrary opinion in the
negative.’’ The Clerk then calls over the names
alphabetically, notes the yea or nay of each, and
gives the list to the President or Speaker, who
declares the result. In the Senate if there be an
equal division the Secretary calls on the Vice-
President and notes his affirmative or negative,
which becomes the decision of the House.
In the House tellers were sometimes, though rarely, ordered to determine
whether one-fifth joined in the demand for the yeas and nays (V, 6045)
but in the later practice the Speaker’s count is not subject to verification
(VIII, 3114–3118), and it is not in order to demand a rising vote of those
opposed on a count by the Speaker to ascertain if one-fifth concur in de-
mand for yeas and nays (VIII, 3112, 3113). Clause 1 of rule XX provides
the method for taking the yeas and nays in the modern practice; but under
clause 2 of that rule both the yeas and nays and calls of the House are
taken by means of the electronic voting system unless the Speaker
discretionarily orders the utilization of other prescribed procedures.
In the House of Commons every member must

§ 505. Parliamentary give his vote the one way or the
law as to giving of
votes. other, Scob., 24, as it is not per-
mitted to anyone to withdraw who
[264]
§ 506
is in the House when the question is put, nor is

anyone to be told in the division who was not in
when the question was put. 2 Hats., 140.
This last position is always true when the vote
is by yeas and nays; where the negative as well
as affirmative of the question is stated by the
President at the same time, and the vote of both
sides begins and proceeds pari passu. It is true
also when the question is put in the usual way,
if the negative also has been put; but if it has
not, the member entering, or any other member
may speak, and even propose amendments, by
which the debate may be opened again, and the
question be greatly deferred. And as some who
have answered aye may have been changed by
the new arguments, the affirmative must be put
over gain. If, then, the member entering may, by
speaking a few words, occasion a repetition of a
question, it would be useless to deny it on his
simple call for it.
Clause 1 of rule III requires Members to vote; but no rule excludes from
voting those not present at the putting of the question, and this require-
ment of the parliamentary law is not observed in the House. No attempt
is made to prevent Members from withdrawing after a question is put,
unless there be a question as to a quorum, when the House proceeds under
clauses 5 and 6 of rule XX.
While the House is telling, no member may

§ 506. Movements of speak or move out of his place, for
Members during
voting. if any mistake be suspected it must
be told again. Mem. in Hakew., 26;
2 Hats., 143.
This rule applies in the House on a vote by division, where the Speaker
counts; but did not apply to the former vote by tellers, where Members
passed between tellers at the rear of the center aisle to be counted.
[265]
§ 507–§ 509a
If any difficulty arises in point of order during

the division, the Speaker is to de-
§ 507. Decisions of
points of order during
a division. cide peremptorily, subject to the fu-
ture censure of the House if irreg-
ular. He sometimes permits old experienced
members to assist him with their advice, which
they do sitting in their seats, covered, to avoid
the appearance of debate; but this can only be
with the Speaker’s leave, else the division might
last several hours. 2 Hats., 143.
Members no longer sit with their hats on (clause 5 of rule XVII) and
rise to speak; respectfully addressing their remarks to the Speaker (clause
1 of rule XVII).
The voice of the majority decides; for the lex

majoris partis is the law of all coun-
§ 508. Decision by
voice of majority; and
tie votes. cils, elections, &c., where not other-
wise expressly provided. Hakew., 93.
But if the House be equally divided, semper
presuamtur pro negante; that is, the former law
is not to be changed but by a majority. Towns.,
col. 134.
The House provides also by rule (clause 1 of rule XX) that in the case
of a tie vote the question shall be lost.
The House, however, requires a two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend
§ 509. Two-thirds
the rules (clause 1 of rule XV), on a motion to dispense
votes. with the call of the Private Calendar on the first Tues-
day of each month (clause 5 of rule XV), and to consider
a special rule immediately (clause 6 of rule XIII), and the Constitution
of the United States requires two-thirds votes for the expulsion of a Mem-
ber, passing vetoed bills, removing political disabilities, and passing joint
resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution.
The standing rules also require a three-fifths vote for passage or adoption
§ 509a. Three-fifths
of a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment thereto, or
votes. a conference report thereon, if carrying a Federal in-
come tax rate increase (clause 5(b) of rule XXI).
[266]
§ 510–§ 512
When from counting the House on a division

§ 510. Business it appears that there is not a
suspended by the
failure of a quorum. quorum, the matter continues ex-
actly in the state in which it was
before the division, and must be resumed at that
point on any future day. 2 Hats., 126.
Although under the rules first adopted in the 95th Congress it is not
in order to make or entertain a point of no quorum unless the question
has been put on the pending motion or proposition, if a quorum in fact
does not respond on a call of the House or on a vote, even the most highly
privileged business must terminate (IV, 2934; VI, 662) and even debate
must stop until a quorum is established (see IV, 2935–2949). No motion
is entertained in the absence of a quorum other than a motion relating
to the call of the House or to adjourn (IV, 2950; VI, 680). Even in the
closing hours of a Congress business has been stopped by the failure of
a quorum (V, 6309; Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37199).
1606, May 1, on a question whether a Member

having said yea may afterwards sit
§ 511. Change of a
vote.
and change his opinion, a precedent
was remembered by the Speaker, of Mr. Morris,
attorney of the wards, in 39 Eliz., who in like
case changed his opinion. Mem. in Hakew., 27.
The House is governed in this respect by the practice under clause 2
of rule XX.
SEC. XLII—TITLES
After the bill has passed, and not before, the

§ 512. Amendments to title may be amended, and is to be
the title of a bill.
fixed by a question; and the bill is
then sent to the other House.
The House by clause 6 of rule XVI embodies this principle with an addi-
tional provision as to debate.
[267]
§ 513
SEC. XLIII—RECONSIDERATION
1798, Jan. A bill on its second reading being

§ 513. Early Senate amended, and on the question
practice as to
reconsideration. whether it shall be read a third
time negatived, was restored by a
decision to reconsider that question. Here the
votes of negative and reconsideration, like posi-
tive and negative quantities in equation, destroy
one another, and are as if they were expunged
from the journals. Consequently the bill is open
for amendment, just so far as it was the moment
preceding the question for the third reading;
that is to say, all parts of the bill are open for
amendment except those on which votes have
been already taken in its present stage. So, also,
it may be recommitted.
The rule permitting a reconsideration of a
question affixing it to no limitation of time or
circumstance, it may be asked whether there is
no limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on
which it is passed has been parted with, there
can be no reconsideration, as if a vote has been
for the passage of a bill and the bill has been
sent to the other House. But where the paper re-
mains, as on a bill rejected, when or under what
circumstances does it cease to be susceptible of
reconsideration? This remains to be settled, un-
less a sense that the right of reconsideration is
a right to waste the time of the House in re-
peated agitations of the same question, so that
it shall never know when a question is done
[268]
§ 514–§ 515
with, should induce them to reform this anoma-

lous proceeding.
The House provides for reconsideration by clause 3 of rule XIX.
In Parliament a question once carried can not

§ 514. Parliamentarybe questioned again at the same
law as to
reconsideration. session, but must stand as the judg-
ment of the House. Towns., col. 67;
Mem. in Hakew., 33. * * *
* * * And a bill once rejected, another of the
§ 515. A bill once same substance can not be brought
rejected not to be
brought up again at in again the same session. Hakew.,
the same session.
158; 6 Grey, 392. But this does not
extend to prevent putting the same question in
different stages of a bill, because every stage of
a bill submits the whole and every part of it to
the opinion of the House as open for amend-
ment, either by insertion or omission, though
the same amendment has been accepted or re-
jected in a former stage. So in reports of commit-
tees, e.g., report of an address, the same ques-
tion is before the House, and open for free dis-
cussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100, 101. So
orders of the House or instructions to commit-
tees may be discharged. So a bill, begun in one
House and sent to the other and there rejected,
may be renewed again in that other, passed, and
sent back. Ib., 92; 3 Hats., 161. Or if, instead of
being rejected, they read it once and lay it aside
or amend it and put it off a month, they may
order in another to the same effect, with the
same or a different title. Hakew., 97, 98.
In the House, with its rule for reconsideration, there is rarely an attempt
to bring forward a bill once rejected at the same session. One instance
[269]
§ 516–§ 517
is recorded (IV, 3384), but the House has declined to consider a bill brought
forward after a rejection (IV, 3384; Mar. 9, 1910, p. 2966). The Committee
on Rules may report as privileged a resolution making in order the consid-
eration of a measure of the same substance as one previously rejected
and to rescind or vacate the action whereby the House had rejected a meas-
ure (VIII, 3391; Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6776); and a special order of business
nearly identical to one previously rejected by the House, but providing
a different scheme for general debate, was held not to violate this section
(July 27, 1993, p. 17115).
Divers expedients are used to correct the ef-

§ 516. Expedients forfects of this rule, as, by passing an
changing the effect of
bills once passed. explanatory act, if anything has
been omitted or ill expressed, 3
Hats., 278, or an act to enforce and make more
effectual an act, &c., or to rectify mistakes in an
act, &c., or a committee on one bill may be in-
structed to receive a clause to rectify the mis-
takes of another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause
was inserted in a bill for rectifying a mistake
committed by a clerk in engrossing a bill of sup-
ply. 2 Hats., 194, 6. Or the session may be closed
for one, two, three, or more days and a new one
commenced. But then all matters depending
must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin
de novo. 2 Hats., 94, 98. Or a part of the subject
may be taken up by another bill or taken up in
a different way. 6 Grey, 304, 316.
And in cases of the last magnitude this rule
§ 517. Exceptions to has not been so strictly and ver-
the rule against
bringing up a matter bally observed as to stop indispen-
once rejected.
sable proceedings altogether. 2
Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the pre-
liminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a
majority of one, on account of the importance of
the question and smallness of the majority, the
[270]
§ 518–§ 520
same question in substance, though with some

words not in the first, and which might change
the opinion of some Members, was brought on
again and carried, as the motives for it were
thought to outweigh the objection of form. 2
Hats, 99, 100.
A second bill may be passed to continue an act
§ 518. Passage of of the same session or to enlarge
supplementary bills.
the time limited for its execution. 2
Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction to the
first act.
The House has by a joint resolution corrected an error in a bill that
had gone to the President (IV, 3519).
SEC. XLIV—BILLS SENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE
§ 519. Laying on the A bill from the other House is

table bills from the
other House.
sometimes ordered to lie on the
table. 2 Hats., 97.
This principle is recognized in the practice of the House, both as to Senate
bills (IV, 3418, 3419; V, 5437), and as to House bills returned with Senate
amendments (V, 5424, 6201–6203). The motion to lay on the table Senate
amendments to a House bill does not take precedence over the motion
to recede and concur, because the motion would table the entire bill (Speak-
er Longworth, Jan. 24, 1927, p. 2165), but the motion to lay on the table
a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment does not carry the
amendment and bill to the table, and other motions are in order to dispose
of the Senate amendment (Feb. 22, 1978, p. 4072).
When bills passed in one House and sent to

the other are ground on special
§ 520. Requests for
information from the
other House.facts requiring proof, it is usual, ei-
ther by message or at a conference,
to ask the grounds and evidence, and this evi-
dence, whether arising out of papers or from the
examination of witnesses, is immediately com-
municated. 3 Hats., 48.
[271]
§ 521
The Houses of Congress transmit with bills accompanying papers, which

are returned when the bills pass or at final adjournment (V, 7259, footnote).
Sometimes one House has asked, by resolution, for papers from the files
of the other (V, 7263, 7264). Testimony is also requested (III, 1855).
SEC. XLV—AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES
When either House, e.g., the House of Com-

mons, send a bill to the other, the
principles as to
other may pass it with amend-
disagreeing, insisting,
and adhering.
ments. The regular progression in
this case is, that the Commons disagree to the
amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons
insist on their disagreement; the Lords adhere
to their amendment; the Commons adhere to
their disagreement. The term of insisting may
be repeated as often as they choose to keep the
question open. But the first adherence by either
renders it necessary for the other to recede or
adhere also; when the matter is usually suffered
to fall. 10 Grey, 148. Latterly, however, there are
instances of their having gone to a second adher-
ence. There must be an absolute conclusion of
the subject somewhere, or otherwise trans-
actions between the Houses would become end-
less. 3 Hats., 268, 270. The term of insisting, we
are told by Sir John Trevor, was then (1679)
newly introduced into parliamentary usage by
the Lords. 7 Grey, 94. It was certainly a happy
innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of
trying modifications which may bring the
Houses to a concurrence. Either House, however,
is free to pass over the term of insisting, and to
adhere in the first instance; 10 Grey, 146; but it
is not respectful to the other. In the ordinary
[272]
§ 522–§ 524
parliamentary course there are two free con-

ferences, at least, before an adherence. 10 Grey,
147.
The House and the Senate follow the principles set forth in this para-
graph of the parliamentary law, and sometimes dispose of differences with-
out resorting to conferences (V, 6165).
If both Houses insist and neither ask a conference nor recede, the bill
fails (V, 6228). If both Houses adhere, the bill fails (V,
§ 522. Insisting and
adhering in the 6163, 6313, 6324, 6325) even though the difference may
practice of the House. be over a very slight amendment (V, 6233–6240). In
rare instances in Congress there have been immediate
adherences on the first disagreement (V, 6303); but this does not preclude
the granting of the request of the other House for a conference (V, 6241–
6244). Sometimes the House recedes from its disagreement as to certain
amendments and adheres as to others (V, 6229). A House having adhered
may at the next stage vote to further adhere (V, 6251). Sometimes the
House has receded from adherence (V, 6252, 6401) or reconsidered its ac-
tion of adherence (V, 6253), after which it has agreed to the amendment
with or without amendment (V, 6253, 6401).
Either House may recede from its amendment

§ 523. Parliamentary and agree to the bill; or recede from
law as to receding.
their disagreement to the amend-
ment, and agree to the same absolutely, or with
an amendment; for here the disagreement and
receding destroy one another, and the subject
stands as before the disagreement. Elysnge, 23,
27; 9 Grey, 476.
In the practice of the two Houses of Congress the motion is to recede
from the amendment without at the same time agreeing
§ 524. Practice of the
House as to receding to the bill, for the bill has already been passed with
from its own the amendment, and receding from the amendment
amendment to a bill of leaves the bill passed (V, 6312). But where the House
the other House.
has previously concurred in a Senate amendment with
an amendment, the House does not by receding from its amendment agree
to the Senate amendment, because the House may then (1) concur in the
Senate amendment or (2) concur in the Senate amendment with another
amendment (VIII, 3199; Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33448–54). The House may not
through one motion, however, recede from its amendment with an amend-
ment (V, 6212; see § 526, infra). A motion in the House to recede from
a House amendment to a Senate amendment, and concur in the Senate
amendment, is divisible (VIII, 3199). One House has receded from its own
[273]
§ 525–§ 526
amendment after the other House had returned it concurred in with an

amendment (V, 6226). However, this has been held insufficient to pass
the bill without further action by the House that concurred with an amend-
ment (VIII, 3177; June 26, 1984, p. 18733).
Where one House has receded from an amendment, it may not at a subse-
quent stage recall its action in order to form a new basis for a conference
(V, 6251). Sometimes one House has receded from its amendment although
it previously had insisted and asked a conference, which had been agreed
to (V, 6319). After the Senate has amended a House amendment it is not
proper for the House to recede from its amendment directly, but the Senate
may recede from its amendment and then the House recede from its amend-
ment (Speaker Reed, June 12, 1890, p. 5981). The motion to recede takes
precedence over the motion to insist and ask a conference (V, 6270).
By receding from its disagreement to an amendment of the Senate the
House does not thereby agree to it (V, 6215); but the
House as to receding Senate amendment is then open to amendment pre-
from disagreement to cisely as before the original disagreement (V, 6212–
amendment of the 6214). The stage of disagreement having been reached,
other House.
the motion to recede and concur takes precedence of
the motion to recede and concur with an amendment (V, 6219–6223; VIII,
3198, 3200, 3202); but a motion to recede and concur is divisible (VIII,
3199) and being divided and the House having receded, a motion to amend
has precedence of the motion to concur (V, 6209–6211; VIII, 3198), even
after the previous question is ordered on both motions before being divided
(Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512).
The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amend-
ment takes precedence of a motion to insist further on the House’s disagree-
ment to the Senate amendment (V, 6224; VIII, 3204), and a motion to
lay certain amendments on the table (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 1927,
p. 2165). It has been held that after the previous question has been moved
on a motion to adhere, a motion to recede may not be made (V, 6310);
and after the previous question is demanded or ordered on a motion to
concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 5488); but where the previous
question has been demanded on a motion to insist, a motion to recede
and concur has been admitted (V, 6208, 6321a).
But the House can not recede from or insist on

§ 526. One House not its own amendment, with an
to recede from its own
amendment with an amendment; for the same reason
amendment; or depart
from form fixed by
that it can not send to the other
adherence. House an amendment to its own act
after it has passed the act. They
may modify an amendment from the other
House by ingrafting an amendment on it, be-
[274]
§ 526
cause they have never assented to it; but they

can not amend their own amendment, because
they have, on the question, passed it in that
form. 9 Grey, 363; 10 Grey, 240. In Senate,
March 29, 1798. Nor where one House has ad-
hered to their amendment, and the other agrees
with an amendment, can the first House depart
from the form which they have fixed by an ad-
herence.
In the case of a money bill, the Lord’s pro-
posed amendments become, by delay, confessedly
necessary. The Commons, however, refused
them as infringing on their privilege as to
money bills; but they offered themselves to add
to the bill a proviso to the same effect, which
had no coherence with the Lords’ amendments;
and urged that it was an expedient warranted
by precedent, and not unparliamentary in a case
become impracticable, and irremediable in any
other way. 3 Hats., 256, 266, 270, 271. But the
Lords refused, and the bill was lost. 1 Chand.,
288. A like case, 1 Chand., 311. * * *
In the House it is a recognized principle that the House may not recede
from its own amendments with an amendment (V, 6216–6218). The House
may not amend its own amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
bill (Mar. 16, 1934, p. 4685). However, the stage of disagreement having
been reached on a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
proposition, the House may first recede from its amendment and, having
receded, may then concur in the Senate amendment with a different
amendment without violating this paragraph (Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 12,
1977, pp. 33448–54).
[275]
§ 527–§ 528
* * * So the Commons resolved that it is un-

§ 527. Text to which parliamentary to strike out, at a
both Houses have
agreed not to be conference, anything in a bill which
changed.
hath been agreed and passed by
both Houses, 6 Grey, 274; 1 Chand., 312.
The practice of the two Houses has confirmed this principle of the par-
liamentary law and established the rule that managers of a conference
may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418,
6420; VIII, 3257; see clause 9 of rule XXII), and neither House, alone,
may empower the managers by instruction to make such a change (V,
6388). In the earlier practice, when it was necessary to change text already
agreed to, the managers appended a supplementary paragraph to their
report, and this was agreed to by unanimous consent in the two Houses
(V, 6433–6436); or the two Houses agreed to a concurrent resolution giving
the managers the necessary powers (V, 6437–6439; Dec. 17, 1974, p. 40472).
Under the current practice the House considers a conference report that
changes text already agreed to by unanimous consent, under suspension
of the rules, or by report from the Committee on Rules waiving clause
9 of rule XXII.
To change text finally agreed to by both Houses, each House may adopt
a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the Secretary
of the Senate to correct the enrollment.
The further principle has been established in practice of the House that
it may not, even by unanimous consent (V, 6179), change in the slightest
particular (V, 6181) the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6180;
VIII, 3257). And this prohibition extends, also, to a case wherein it is pro-
posed to add a new section at the end of a bill that has passed both Houses
(V, 6182).
§ 528. Consideration of A motion to amend an amend-

Senate and House
amendments;
ment from the other House takes
precedence of precedence of a motion to agree or
motions.
disagree.
This is the rule of the House if the stage of disagreement has not been
reached (V, 6164, 6169–71; VIII, 3202), or if the House has receded from
its disagreement to the amendment in question (VIII, 3196, 3197, 3203).
The following discussion summarizes the precedence and consideration of
motions to dispose of Senate or House amendments in contemporary prac-
tice.
[276]
§ 528a–§ 528b
When Senate amendments are before the House for the first time, or
§ 528a. Consideration
when the Senate has returned a bill with House amend-
of Senate or House ments to which it has disagreed (and on which the
amendments. House has not insisted), no privileged motion is in order
in the House except a motion pursuant to clause 1 of
rule XXII, made by direction of the committee with subject-matter jurisdic-
tion, to disagree to the Senate amendments or insist on the House amend-
ment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate (see Oct. 11,
1984, p. 32308). Other motions to dispose of amendments between the
Houses are not privileged until the stage of disagreement has been reached
on a bill with amendments of the other House (clause 4 of rule XXII; IV,
3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of disagreement is not
reached until the House has either disagreed to Senate amendments or
has insisted on its own amendments to a Senate bill, and has notified
the Senate. Further House action can only occur when the House has re-
ceived the papers back from the Senate (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).
Before the stage of disagreement, an amendment to a Senate amendment
to a House-passed measure on the Speaker’s table is not in order until
an order is entered for consideration of the Senate amendment in the House
(Speaker O’Neill, June 19, 1986, pp. 14638–40).
If the House does agree to consider a bill with Senate amendment before
the stage of disagreement has been reached, by unanimous consent or spe-
cial order of business, a motion to amend takes precedence over the motion
to agree. However, the usual practice in such a situation is to consider
a request, either by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules, or special
order of business reported by the Committee on Rules, simultaneously pro-
viding for consideration and disposition of the Senate amendment (thus
precluding the consideration of other requests to dispose of the amendment
(see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, § 5)).
It should be noted that a small category of Senate amendments, those
not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole, may be taken
from the Speaker’s table and disposed of by motion pursuant to clause
2 of rule XXII before the stage of disagreement has been reached, but
the vast majority of legislation does affect the Treasury (as described in
clause 1 of rule XIII) and requires consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Should the House consider Senate amendments before the stage of dis-
§ 528b. Precedence of
agreement, the precedence of nonprivileged motions is
motions before the as follows (disregarding the privileged motion to dis-
stage of disagreement. agree and send to conference by direction of the com-
mittee): (1) to concur with amendment; (2) to concur;
(3) to disagree and request or agree to a conference; and (4) to disagree.
With respect to consideration of House amendments before the stage of
disagreement, the precedence of motions is (1) to recede; (2) to insist and
request or agree to a conference; and (3) to insist. Although the House
may adhere, adherence is seldom utilized (because it precludes a conference
unless receded from) and is extremely rare on first disagreement (see § 522,
[277]
§ 528c
supra; see also the discussion of adherence in Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, § 12).
A motion to adhere is the least privileged motion.
It was formerly held that a motion to send to conference yielded to the
simple motion to disagree, or to insist (see Cannon’s Procedure in the House
of Representatives, p. 120). In current practice, however, the compound
motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to a con-
ference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a con-
ference, has replaced the two-step procedure for getting to conference and,
because it brings the two Houses together, takes precedence over simple
motions to insist or disagree (or to adhere).
Notwithstanding the foregoing precedence of motions, the ordinary mo-
tions applicable to any question that is under debate—to table, to postpone
to a day certain, and to refer—remain available under clause 4 of rule
XVI. A motion to table Senate amendments brings the bill to the table
(V, 5424, 6201–6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334). It must also be noted that
before consideration of any motions to dispose of Senate amendments, the
Speaker has the discretionary authority, under clause 2 of rule XIV, to
refer such amendments to the appropriate committee, with or without a
time limitation for committee consideration. It has been held that before
the stage of disagreement, the motion to table the Senate amendment or
amendments (V, 6201–6203) or the motion to refer the Senate amendment
or amendments (V, 5301, 6172, 6174) take precedence (in that order) over
motions to amend, agree, or disagree. And if the previous question has
been ordered on another motion to dispose of the Senate amendment, a
motion to refer is in order (V, 5575).
The House has reached the stage of disagreement on a bill when it is
§ 528c. Reaching the
again in possession of the papers thereon, having pre-
stage of disagreement. viously disagreed to Senate amendments or insisted on
House amendments (with or without requesting or
agreeing to a conference). Only previous insistence or disagreement by
the House itself places the House in disagreement (and not merely dis-
agreement, insistence, or amendment by the Senate). For example, if the
House has concurred in a Senate amendment to a House bill with an
amendment, insisted on the House amendment and requested a conference,
and the Senate has then concurred in the House amendment with a further
amendment, the matter is privileged for further disposition in the House
because the House has communicated to the Senate its insistence and re-
quest for a conference (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 20868). Of course, if the Senate
has agreed to a House request for a conference, the bill is committed to
conference and motions are not in order for its disposition until after the
conferees have reported (the House may unilaterally discharge its conferees
and consider the bill, if in possession of the papers, only by unanimous
consent, special order, or suspension of the rules, and not by motion).
Once the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with amend-
ments, the House remains in the stage of disagreement until the matter
is finally disposed of and motions for its disposition are privileged whenever
[278]
§ 528d
the House is in possession of the papers. This principle applies both where
the stage of disagreement is reached without a conference, and where mat-
ters remain in disagreement after conferees have reported. It is possible,
therefore, for motions to be privileged because the House is in disagreement
on the bill, but for the House to have receded from its disagreement or
insistence on a particular amendment or to have received a new Senate
amendment for the first time. In those cases motions remain privileged,
but the precedence of motions on the amendment in question reverts to
the precedence of motions before the stage of disagreement, as set forth
in § 528b, supra (see discussion below of the effect of the House’s receding).
The two Houses having permitted the amendment process to go beyond
the second degree, a motion to concur in a Senate amendment (in the
4th degree), the stage of disagreement having been reached, is privileged
but is subject to the motion to lay on the table (Mar. 18, 1986, p. 5217).
Generally, after the stage of disagreement has been reached on a Senate
§ 528d. Precedence of
amendment, the precedence of motions is as follows:
motions after the (1) to recede and concur; (2) to recede and concur with
stage of disagreement. an amendment or amendments; (3) to insist on dis-
agreement and request a (further) conference; (4) to in-
sist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. The Chair may examine the sub-
stance of a pending motion to determine the precedence thereof in relation
to another motion, even though in form it may appear preferential. Thus,
a proper motion to concur with an amendment to a Senate amendment
reported from conference in disagreement (the House having receded) has
been offered and voted on before a pending motion drafted as one to concur
with an amendment but in actual effect a motion to insist on disagreement
to the Senate amendment, because simply reinserting the original House
text without change (Deschler-Brown, ch. 31, § 8.12). The ordinary motion
to table under clause 4 of rule XVI may be applied to a Senate amendment
but carries the bill to the table. When applied to a motion to dispose of
a Senate amendment, the motion to table carries to the table only the
motion to dispose and not the amendment or bill (see Deschler-Brown,
ch. 32, § 7.27). With respect to the motion to refer (or recommit), a simple
motion to refer or recommit only takes precedence over a motion to adhere,
after the stage of disagreement has been reached on the bill. After the
previous question is ordered on a pending motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment, a motion to recommit (pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIX) may
only be offered if it constitutes, in effect, a motion that takes precedence
over the pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment. Thus, after
the stage of disagreement has been reached on a Senate amendment, a
motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith with an
amendment may not be offered after the previous question has been or-
dered on a motion to recede and concur, a motion of higher privilege (see
Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, § 7.5). However, after the House has receded from
disagreement to a Senate amendment, a motion to amend is preferential
over a motion to agree, and thus after the previous question is ordered
[279]
§ 528d
on a motion to concur, the House having already receded, a motion to

recommit with instructions to amend would be in order (VIII, 2744). Mo-
tions to postpone, either to a day certain or indefinitely, have the lowest
privilege with respect to a Senate amendment after the stage of disagree-
ment has been reached. For old examples in which the House postponed
indefinitely consideration of Senate amendments, see V, 6199, 6200 (in
the latter case the Senate had adhered). Clause 8(b)(3) of rule XXII makes
preferential and separately debatable a motion to insist on disagreement
to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill, if: (1) the Senate
amendment has been reported from conference in disagreement; (2) the
original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment proposes to change
existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely offered by the chair
of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
Where the matter in question is a House amendment or amendments
after the stage of disagreement has been reached, the precedence of motions
is (1) to recede; (2) to further insist on the amendment and request a (fur-
ther) conference; and (3) to adhere. For discussion of possible options of
the House, having receded from its amendment or amendments, see § 524,
supra, and Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, § 7. If the House recedes from its
amendment to a Senate bill, the bill is passed unless otherwise specified.
If the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate amendment, the
bill is not passed unless the House takes another step, either to concur
in the Senate amendment or amend it. The House having receded from
its amendment to a Senate amendment, it is no longer in disagreement
on the amendment (although it is on the bill if the stage of disagreement
has previously been reached), and the motion to amend the Senate amend-
ment takes precedence over the motion to concur therein. Until the House
recedes, however, a motion to recede from the House amendment and con-
cur in the Senate amendment is preferential. A conference report held
to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was vitiated, after which a privileged motion
to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment incor-
porating by reference the text of an introduced House bill was offered (Nov.
14, 2002, p. 22409).
The same principle as to the precedence of motions after a division of
the question applies to a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amend-
ment, the stage of disagreement having been reached. Although the motion
to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede and concur
with an amendment, the former motion may be divided on the demand
of any Member and each portion may be separately debatable (Oct. 5, 1978,
33698–701). If the House agrees to recede, a motion to concur with an
amendment then takes precedence over the motion to concur, is considered
as pending if part of the original motion, and is voted on first (Sept. 30,
1988, pp. 27265–74; Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24097). As indicated in Deschler-
Brown, ch. 32, § 8.2, a Member offering a preferential motion does not
thereby gain control of the debate, which remains in the control of the
floor manager recognized to offer the original motion to dispose of amend-
[280]
§ 529
ments between the Houses (and which is divided equally between the ma-
jority and minority floor managers with respect to amendments reported
from conference in disagreement under clause 7(b) of rule XXII). Recogni-
tion to offer a preferential motion goes to the senior committee member
seeking the floor who is not the offeror of a displaced motion of lesser
privilege (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29565). Although the manager of a conference
report is entitled to prior recognition to offer motions to dispose of amend-
ments in disagreement, the manager should not be entitled to offer two
motions, one preferential to the other, to be pending at the same time.
However, where the manager’s first motion to insist on disagreement has
been superseded by the House’s voting to recede from disagreement, then
the initial motion is no longer pending; and the manager may be recognized
to offer another motion to concur with an amendment, which would be
preferential to the remaining portion of another Member’s divided motion
to concur (Deschler-Brown, ch 32, § 8.2). This is to be contrasted with the
situation in which the bill manager offers a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment that is rejected by the House, in which case recognition to
offer a subsequent motion to dispose of the pending Senate amendment
shifts to another Member who led the opposition to the rejected motion
A bill originating in one House is passed by

§ 529. Degree of the other with an amend-
amendments between
the Houses. ment. The originating House
agrees to their amendment with an
amendment. The other may agree to their
amendment with an amendment, that being only
in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the
amending House, the first amendment with
which they passed the bill is a part of its text.
It is the only text they have agreed to. The
amendment to that text by the originating
House therefore is only in the 1st degree, and
the amendment to that again by the amending
House is only in the 2d, to wit, an amendment
to an amendment, and so admissible. Just so,
when, on a bill from the originating House, the
other, at its second reading, makes an amend-
ment; on the third reading this amendment is
[281]
§ 530–§ 532
become the text of the bill, and if an amendment

to it be moved an amendment to that amend-
ment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d
degree.
This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 6176–6178).
For a discussion of the attitude of the Senate on this topic, see October
31, 1991 (p. 29494).
SEC. XLVI—CONFERENCES
It is on the occasion of amendments between

§ 530. Parliamentary the Houses that conferences are
law as to asking
conferences. usually asked; but they may be
asked in all cases of difference of
opinion between the two Houses on matters de-
pending between them. The request of a con-
ference, however, must always be by the House
which is possessed of the papers. 3 Hats., 31; 1
Grey, 425.
The House follows the principles set forth in this paragraph of the par-
liamentary law. A conference may be asked on only a portion of the amend-
ments in disagreement, leaving the differences as to the remainder to be
settled by the action of the two Houses themselves (V, 6401). In very rare
instances conferences have been asked by one House after the other has
absolutely rejected a main proposition (IV, 3442; V, 6258). A difference
over an amendment to a proposed constitutional amendment may be com-
mitted to a conference (V, 7037).
Although conferences between the two Houses of Congress are usually
held over differences as to amendments to bills, occa-
§ 531. Conferences
over matters other sionally differences arise as to the respective preroga-
than differences as to tives of the Houses (II, 1485–1495) or as to matters
amendments. of procedures (V, 6401), as in impeachment proceedings
(III, 2304), which are referred to conference. In early
and exceptional instances conferences have been asked as to legislative
matters when no propositions relating thereto were pending (V, 6255–
6257).
In very rare cases, also, the Houses interchange views and come to con-
§ 532. Conferences by
clusions by means of select committees appointed on
means of select the part of each House (I, 3). Thus, in 1821, a joint
committees. committee was chosen to consider and report to the two
Houses whether or not it was expedient to provide for
[282]
§ 533–§ 535
the admission of Missouri into the Union (IV, 4471), and in 1877 similar
committees were appointed to devise a method for counting the electoral
vote (III, 1953).
The parliamentary law provides that the request for a conference must
always be by the House that is in possession of the
conferences. papers (V, 8254). It was formerly the more regular prac-
tice for the House disagreeing to amendments of the
other to leave the asking of a conference to that other House if it should
decide to insist (V, 6278–6285, 6324); but it is so usual in the later practice
for the House disagreeing to an amendment of the other to ask a conference
that an omission to do so has even raised a question (V, 6273). Yet it
cannot be said that the practice requires a request for a conference to
be made by the House disagreeing to the amendments of the other (V,
6274–6277). One House having asked a conference at one session, the other
House may agree to the conference at the next session of the same Congress
(V, 6286).
In rare instances one House has declined the request of the other for
a conference (V, 6313–6315; Mar. 20, 1951, p. 2683),
conferences declined sometimes accompanying it by adherence (V, 6313,
or neglected. 6315). In one instance, in which the Senate declined
a conference, it transmitted, by message, its reasons
for so doing (V, 6313). Sometimes, also, one House disregards the request
of the other for a conference and recedes from its disagreement, thereby
rendering a conference unnecessary (V, 6316–6318). And in one case, in
which one House has asked a conference to which the other has assented,
the asking House receded before the conference took place (V, 6319). Also,
a bill returned to the House with a request for a conference has been post-
poned indefinitely (V, 6199).
After the stage of disagreement has been reached, a motion to ask a
§ 535. Motions to
conference is considered as distinct from motions to
request conferences. agree or disagree to amendments of the other House
(V, 6268) and the motions to agree, recede, or insist
are considered as preferential (V, 6269, 6270). Where a motion to request
a conference at this stage has been rejected, its repetition at the same
stage of the proceedings, no other motion to dispose of the matter in dis-
agreement having been considered, has not been permitted (V, 6325).
Where a conference results in disagreement, a motion to request a new
conference is privileged (V, 6586). Sometimes disagreements are voted on
by the House and conferences asked through the medium of special orders
of business (IV, 3242–3249).
Before the stage of disagreement, any motion with respect to amend-
ments between the two Houses is without privilege, except for motions
with respect to the limited number of amendments that qualify under
clause 2 of rule XXII or motions under clause 1 of rule XXII, to disagree
to Senate amendments (or insist on House amendments) and to request
or agree to an initial conference if the motion is authorized by the primary
[283]
§ 536
committee and all reporting committees of initial referral and if the Speak-
er chooses to recognize for that purpose. Under clause 2(a)(3) of rule XI,
a committee may adopt a rule providing that the chair be directed to offer
a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII. A motion under the latter clause
may be repeated, if again authorized by the relevant committees, and if
the Speaker again agrees to recognize for that purpose, even though the
House has once rejected a motion to send the same matter to conference
(Speaker Albert, Oct. 3, 1972, p. 33502).
Although usual, it is not essential that one House, in asking a conference,
§ 536. Managers of
transmit the names of its managers at the same time
conferences. (V, 6405). The managers, properly so called (V, 6335),
constitute practically two distinct committees, each of
which acts by a majority (V, 6334). The Speaker appoints the managers
on the part of the House (clause 11 of rule I) and has discretion as to
the number to serve on a given bill (V, 6336; VIII, 2193) but must appoint
(1) a majority of Members who generally support the House position, as
determined by the Speaker; (2) Members who are primarily responsible
for the legislation; and (3) to the fullest extent feasible the principal pro-
ponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House (clause
11 of rule I). Although the practice used to be to appoint three managers
from each house (V, 6336), in the absence of joint rules each House may
appoint whatever number it sees fit (V, 6328–6330). The two Houses have
frequently appointed a disparate number of managers (V, 6331–6333; VIII,
3221); and where the Senate appointed nine and the House but three,
a motion to instruct the Speaker to appoint a greater number of managers
on the part of the House was held out of order (VII, 2193). In appointing
managers the Speaker usually consults the Member in charge of the bill
(V, 6336); and where an amendment in disagreement falls within the juris-
diction of two committees of the House, the Speaker has named Members
from both committees and specified the respective areas on which they
were to confer (Speaker Albert, Nov. 30, 1971, p. 43422). In appointing
conferees on the general appropriation bill for fiscal year 1951, Speaker
Rayburn appointed a set of managers for each chapter of the bill and four
Members to sit on all chapters (Aug. 7, 1950, p. 11894). Although the ap-
pointment of conferees, both as to their number and composition, is within
the discretion of the Chair (Speaker Garner, June 24, 1932, p. 13876;
Speaker Martin, July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and although a point of order will
not lie against the exercise of this discretion (VIII, 2193, 3221), the Speaker
normally takes into consideration the attitude of the majority and minority
of the House on the disagreements in issue (V, 6336–6338; VIII, 3223),
the varying views of the Members of the House (V, 6339, 6340), and does
not necessarily confine the appointments to members of the committee
in charge of the bill (V, 6370). In one case, in which the prerogatives of
the House were involved, all of the managers were appointed to represent
the majority opinion (V, 6338). See also § 637, infra.
[284]
§ 537–§ 539
Where there were several conferences on a bill, it was the early practice
§ 537. Reappointment
to change the managers at each conference (V, 6288–
of, at second and 6291, 6324), and so fixed was this practice that their
subsequent reappointment had a special significance, indicating an
conferences. unyielding temper (V, 6352–6368); but in the later prac-
tice it is the rule to reappoint managers (V, 6341–6344)
unless a change be necessary to enable the sentiment of the House to
be represented (V, 6369).
Managers of a conference are excused from service either by authority
§ 538. Vacancies, etc.,
of the House (V, 6373–6376; VIII, 3224, 3227) or, since
in managers of the 103d Congress, by removal by the Speaker (clause
conferences. 11 of rule I). The absence of a manager may cause a
vacancy, which the Speaker fills by appointment (V,
6372; VIII, 3228). If one House makes a change in its managers, it informs
the other House, by message (V, 6377, 6378). According to the later practice
the powers of managers who have not reported do not expire at the termi-
nation of a session, unless it be the last session (V, 6260–6262).
Conferences may be either simple or free. At

a conference simply, written rea-
law as to free and
sons are prepared by the House
simple conferences.
asking it, and they are read and de-

livered, without debate, to the managers of the
other House at the conference, but are not then
to be answered. 4 Grey, 144. The other House
then, if satisfied, vote the reasons satisfactory,
or say nothing; if not satisfied they resolve then
not satisfactory and ask a conference on the sub-
ject of the last conference, where they read and
deliver, in like manner, written answer to those
reasons. 3 Grey, 183. They are meant chiefly to
record the justification of each House to the na-
tion at large and to posterity and in proof that
the miscarriage of a necessary measure is not
imputable to them. 3 Grey, 255. At free con-
ferences the managers discuss, viva voce and
freely, and interchange propositions for such
modifications as may be made in a parliamen-
[285]
§ 540–§ 541
tary way, and may bring the sense of the two

Houses together. * * *
This provision of the parliamentary law bears little relation to the mod-
§ 540. Free and simple
ern practice of the two Houses of Congress, and that
conferences in practice has evolved a new definition: ‘‘A free conference
modern practice. is that which leaves the committee of conference en-
tirely free to pass upon any subject where the two
branches have disagreed in their votes, not, however, including any action
upon any subject where there has been a concurrent vote of both branches.
A simple conference—perhaps it should more properly be termed a strict
or a specific conference, though the parliamentary term is ‘simple’—is that
which confines the committee of conference to the specific instructions of
the body appointing it’’ (V, 6403). And where the House had asked a free
conference it was held not in order to instruct the managers (V, 6384).
But it is very rare for the House in asking a conference to specify whether
it shall be free or simple.
In their practices as to the instruction of managers of a conference, the
§ 541. Instruction of
House and the Senate do not agree. Only in rare in-
managers of a stances has the Senate instructed (V, 6398), and these
conference. instances are at variance with its declaration, made
after full consideration, that managers may not be in-
structed (V, 6397). And where the House has instructed its managers, the
Senate sometimes has declined to participate and asked a free conference
(V, 6402–6404). In the later practice the House does not inform the Senate
when it instructs its managers (V, 6399), the Senate having objected to
the transmittal of instructions by message (V, 6400, 6401). In one instance
in which the Senate learned indirectly that the House had instructed its
managers, it declared that the conference should be full and free, and in-
structed its own managers to withdraw if they should find the freedom
of the conference impaired (V, 6406). But the House holds to the opinion
that the House may instruct its managers (V, 6379–6382), although the
propriety of doing so at a first conference has been questioned (V, 6388,
footnote). And in rare instances in which a free conference is asked instruc-
tion is not in order (V, 6384). At a new conference the instructions of a
former conference are not in force (V, 6383; VIII, 3240). And instructions
may not direct the managers to do that which they might not otherwise
do (V, 6386, 6387; VIII, 3235, 3244), as to effect a change in part of a
bill not in disagreement (V, 6391–6394) or change the text to which both
Houses have agreed (V, 6388). Although managers may disregard instruc-
tions, their report may not for that reason be ruled out of order (V, 6395;
VIII, 3246; June 8, 1972, p. 20282), and when a conference report is recom-
mitted with instructions the managers are not confined to the instructions
alone (VIII, 3247).
The motion to instruct managers should be offered after the vote to ask
for or agree to a conference and before the managers are appointed (V,
[286]
§ 542–§ 543
6379–6382; VIII, 3233, 3240, 3256). The motion to instruct may be amend-
ed unless the previous question is ordered (V, 6525; VIII, 3231, 3240);
thus a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to a numbered Senate
amendment with an amendment may be amended, upon rejection of the
previous question, to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate amend-
ment (June 9, 1982, pp. 13027, 13028, 13039, 13049). A Member may not
be recognized for a unanimous-consent request to modify a pending motion
to instruct unless yielded to for that purpose by the proponent (Mar. 29,
2006, p. 4377). The motion to instruct may be laid on the table without
carrying the bill to the table (VIII, 2658). The motion is debatable (see
clause 7(b) of rule XXII) unless the previous question is ordered (VIII,
2675, 3240), which the proponent may not move until those allotted time
under clause 7(b) have yielded back (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22842). After a motion
to ask or agree to a conference is agreed to, only one valid motion to instruct
is in order (VIII, 3236; Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583); and the
ruling out of such a motion does not preclude the offering of a proper motion
(VIII, 3235; Dec. 7, 2005, p. 27706); but one motion having been considered
and disposed of, further motions are not in order (VIII, 3236). The restric-
tion on further motions does not apply to a motion to instruct under clause
7(c) of rule XXII (Aug. 22, 1935, pp. 14162–64).
A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition for a motion
to instruct conferees (Speaker Bankhead, Oct. 31, 1939, pp. 1103–05;
Speaker Albert, Oct. 19, 1971, pp. 36832–35), and if two minority members
of the reporting committee seek recognition to offer a motion to instruct
conferees before their appointment, the Chair will recognize the senior
minority member of the committee (Oct. 10, 1986, p. 30181; Speaker
Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583).
* * * And each party report in writing to

their respective Houses the sub-
law as to reports of
stance of what is said on both sides,
managers of a
conference.
and it is entered in their journals. 9
Grey, 220; 3 Hats; 280. This report can not be
amended or altered, as that of a committee may
be. Journal Senate, May 24, 1796.
In the two Houses of Congress conference reports were originally merely
§ 543. Forms of
suggestions for action and were neither identical in the
conference reports.two Houses nor acted on as a whole (V, 6468–6471).
In the House clause 7(a) of rule XXII provides that con-
ference reports may be received at any time, except when the Journal is
being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is dividing. They
are privileged on or after the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, or legal holidays) after they have been filed and printed in the
Record, together with the accompanying statement (clause 8 of rule XXII).
[287]
§ 544–§ 545
The early reports were not signed by the managers (IV, 3905); but in the
later practice the signatures of the majority of the managers of each House
is required (V, 6497–6502; VIII, 3295). Sometimes a manager indorses the
report with a conditional approval or dissent (V, 6489–6496, 6538). How-
ever, signatures with conditions are not counted toward a majority (Nov.
18, 1991, p. 32689) and in the modern practice are not printed in the report.
Supplemental reports or minority views may not be filed in connection
with conference reports (VIII, 3302). The name of an absent manager may
not be affixed, but the two Houses by concurrent action may authorize
the manager to sign the report after it has been acted on (V, 6488). The
minority portion of the managers of a conference have no authority to make
either a written or verbal report concerning the conference (V, 6406). In
the later practice reports of managers are identical, and made in duplicate
for the two Houses, the House managers signing first the report for their
House and the Senate managers signing the other report first (V, 6323,
6426, 6499, 6500, 6504). Under certain circumstances managers may report
an entirely new bill on a subject in disagreement, but this bill is acted
on as part of the report (V, 6465–6467; see also clause 9 of rule XXII).
A quorum among the managers on the part of the House at a committee
of conference is established by their signatures on the conference report
and joint explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27662).
Managers may report an agreement as to a portion of the numbered
§ 544. Partial
amendments in disagreement, leaving the remainder
conference reports. to be disposed of by subsequent action (V, 6460–6464).
Where a Senate amendment to the title of a House bill
was in conference, but inadvertently omitted from the conference report,
the House adopted the report, and, by unanimous consent, insisted on its
disagreement to the putatively reported amendment and agreed to a con-
current resolution that deemed the conference report to have ‘‘resolved
all disagreements’’ (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20333).
Where managers of a conference are unable to agree, or where a report
§ 545. Reports of
is disagreed to in either House, another conference is
inability to agree. usually asked (V, 6288–6291). When managers report
that they have been unable to agree, the report is not
acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p. 15816). Al-
though under the earlier practice, when conferees reported in complete
disagreement, the amendments in disagreement were considered available
for immediate disposition (VIII, 3299, 3332), the current practice (as a
result of the amendment to clause 8(a) of rule XXII that became effective
in the 93d Congress) is to require the matter to lay over until the third
calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays) after the
report in disagreement is filed and printed in the Record. In the earlier
practice reports of inability to agree were made verbally or by unsigned
written reports (V, 6563–6567); but in later practice they are written, in
identical form, and signed by the managers of the two Houses (V, 6568,
6569).
[288]
§ 546–§ 547
The managers of a conference must confine themselves to the differences

§ 546. Managers
committed to them (V, 6417, 6418; VIII, 3252, 3255,
restricted to the 3282), and may not include subjects not within the dis-
disagreements of the agreements (V, 6407, 6408; VIII, 3253–3255, 3260,
two Houses. 3282, 3284), even though germane to a question in issue
(V, 6419; VIII, 3256; Speaker Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p.
41849). But they may perfect amendments committed to them if they do
not in so doing go beyond the differences (V, 6409, 6413). Thus, where
an amendment providing an appropriation to construct a road had been
disagreed to, it was held in order to report a provision to provide for a
survey for the road (V, 6425). Managers may not change the text to which
both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418, 6420, 6433–6436). But if the
amendment in issue strikes all of the bill after the enacting clause and
substitutes a new text, the managers have the whole subject before them
and may exercise a broad discretion as to details (V, 6424; VIII, 3266),
and may even report an entirely new bill on the subject (V, 6421, 6423;
VIII, 3248, 3263, 3265, 3276; § 1088, infra). If the amendment in disagree-
ment proposes a substitute differing greatly from the House provision they
may eliminate the entire subject matter (Speaker Gillett, Sept. 14, 1922,
p. 12598).
In the House the Speaker may rule out a conference report if it be shown
§ 547. Remedy where
that the managers have exceeded their authority (V,
managers exceed their 6409–6416; VIII, 3256; Oct. 4, 1962, p. 22332; Nov. 14,
authority. 2002, pp. 22408, 22409). In the House points of order
against reports are made or reserved after the report
is read and before the reading of the statement (V, 6424, 6441; VIII, 3282,
3284, 3285, 3287), or consideration begins (V, 6903–6905; VIII, 3286), and
comes too late after the report has been agreed to (V, 6442); and in case
the statement is read in lieu of the report the point of order must be made
or reserved before the statement is read (VIII, 3256, 3265, 3285, 3288,
3289). Where clause 8(c) of rule XXII applies, points of order must be made
before debate begins on the report (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22408).
A conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was vitiated,
after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a Senate amend-
ment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text of an intro-
duced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).
Under the former practice of the Senate, the Chair did not rule out con-
ference reports, but the Senate itself expressed its opinion on the vote
to agree to the report (V, 6426–6432). However, on March 8, 1918, the
Senate adopted a ‘‘scope’’ rule providing for a point of order against con-
ferees inserting matter not committed to them or changing the text agreed
to by both Houses. This rule of the Senate was strictly construed (VIII,
3273, 3275) until the 104th Congress when the Senate overturned on ap-
peal a ruling of its presiding officer that the inclusion of a special labor-
law provision in a conference report exceeded the scope of conference (Oct.
3, 1996, pp. 27147–51). The Chair interpreted that action as tantamount
[289]
§ 548–§ 549
to a change in the Senate rules until the 107th Congress. Public Law 106–
553 provided that at the beginning of the 107th Congress the Presiding
Officer of the Senate would apply precedents under Senate rule XXVIII
as in effect at the end of the 103d Congress. Public Law 110–81 amended
it to provide a new procedure (see, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007, p. l).
The managers of a conference may not report before the other House
§ 548. Meeting and
is notified of their appointment and a meeting is held
action of managers. (V, 6458). Conferences are generally held in the Capitol,
and formerly with closed doors, although in rare in-
stances Members and others were admitted to make arguments (V, 6254,
footnote, 6263). Clause 12 of rule XXII now provides for at least one open
conference meeting except if the House determines by record vote that
all or part of the meeting may be closed to the public. The same rule now
provides for a point of order in the House against the report and for an
automatic request for a new conference if the House managers fail to meet
in open session following appointment of the Senate conferees (Dec. 20,
1982, p. 32896). For a discussion of open conference meetings, see § 1093,
infra. Rarely, also, papers in the nature of petitions have been referred
to managers (V, 6263). The managers of the two Houses vote separately
(V, 6336). Clause 12(a)(3) of rule XXII provides additional statements on
the meetings, discussions, and signatures of House managers. Clause 13
of rule XXII provides a point of order against consideration of a conference
report that differs in a non-clerical manner from the version placed before
the House managers for signature.
The report of the managers of a conference goes first to one House and
§ 549. Action on a
then to the other, neither House acting until it is in
conference report in possession of the papers, which means the original bill
the two Houses. and amendments, as well as the report (V, 6322, 6518–
6522, 6586; VIII, 3301). The report must be acted on
as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety (V, 6472–6480,
6530–6533; VIII, 3304, 3305; Speaker Bankhead, Aug. 22, 1940, p. 10763;
Speaker Albert, Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40481); and until the report has been
acted on no motion to deal with the individual amendments is in order
(V, 6323, 6389, 6390; Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 16, 1942, pp. 2502–04). Under
a special order of business recommended by the Committee on Rules, the
House has considered a single, indivisible motion to adopt not only a con-
ference report but also sundry motions to dispose of amendments reported
from conference in disagreement (June 18, 1992, p. 15453). Although ordi-
narily reports are agreed to by majority vote, a two-thirds vote is required
on a report relating to a constitutional amendment (V, 7036). Conference
reports must be acted on in both Houses and, in a case in which the Senate
had adopted a report recommending that it recede from its amendments
to a House bill, the House rejected the report and then agreed to the Senate
amendments (Mar. 21, 1956, p. 5278). A conference report being made
up but not acted on at the expiration of a Congress, the bill is lost (V,
[290]
§ 550–§ 551
6309). One House has, by message, reminded the other of its neglect to
act on a conference report; but this was an occasion of criticism (V, 6309).
When a conference report is presented, the question on agreeing is re-
§ 550. Motions in order
garded as pending (V, 6517; VIII, 3300), and as the
during action on a negative of it is equivalent to disagreement, the motion
conference report. to disagree is not admitted (II, 1473; V, 6517; VIII,
3300). The reading of the amendments to which the
report relates is not in order during its consideration (V, 5298). The report
may not be amended on motion made in either House alone (V, 6534, 6535;
VIII, 3306), but amendment is sometimes made by concurrent action of
the two Houses (V, 6536, 6537; VIII, 3308). A motion to refer to a standing
committee (V, 6558) or to lay on the table is not entertained in the House
(V, 6538–6544); and a conference report may not be sent to Committee
of the Whole on suggestion that it contains matter ordinarily requiring
consideration in that committee (V, 6559–6561). It is in order on motion
to recommit a conference report if the other body, by action on the report,
have not discharged their managers (V, 6545–6553, 6609; VIII, 3310), and
by concurrent resolution a report may be recommitted to conference after
each House has acted thereon (VIII, 3316), but such a proposition would
not be privileged in the House (V, 6554–6557; VIII, 3309).
A bill being recommitted to the committee of conference, no further action
is taken by the House until it is again reported by the managers (VIII,
3326, 3327), and when reported is subject to another motion to recommit
(VIII, 3325). Because instructions included in a motion to recommit a con-
ference report are not binding, adoption of such a motion opens to further
negotiation all issues committed to conference (Apr. 21, 1988, p. 8198).
A motion to recommit a conference report may not instruct House managers
to exceed the scope of conference (§ 1088, infra); and, under clause 7(d)
of rule XXII, a motion to instruct may not contain argument (§ 1079, infra).
When either House disagrees to a conference report the matter is left
§ 551. Effect of
in the position it was in before the conference was asked
disagreement to a (V, 6525), and the amendments in disagreement come
conference report. up for further action (II, 1473), but do not return to
the state they were in before disagreement, so that they
need not be considered in Committee of the Whole (V, 6589). Motions for
disposition of Senate amendments, sending to conference and instruction
of conferees, are again in order (VIII, 3303). However, if a conference report
is considered as rejected pursuant to the provisions of clause 10 of rule
XXII because of the inclusion of nongermane matter, the pending question
is as specified in that clause and, depending on the nature of the text
in disagreement, may be to recede and concur with an amendment, to
insist on the House position, or to insist on disagreement (see §§ 1089,
1090, infra).
[291]
§ 552–§ 553
A conference may be asked, before the House

§ 552. Custody of asking it has come to a resolution of
papers when a
conference is asked disagreement, insisting or adhering.
before disagreement.
3 Hats., 269, 341. In which case the
papers are not left with the other conferees, but
are brought back to the foundation of the vote to
be given. And this is the most reasonable and
respectful proceeding; for, as was urged by the
Lords on a particular occasion, ‘‘it is held vain,
and below the wisdom of Parliament, to reason
or argue against fixed resolutions, and upon
terms of impossibility to persuade.’’ 3 Hats., 226.
* * *
In the Houses of Congress conferences are sometimes asked before a
disagreement, and while the rule as to retention of the papers undoubtedly
holds good, neglect to observe it has not been questioned (V, 6585).
* * * So the Commons say, ‘‘an adherence is

never delivered at a free conference,
adherence and
which implies debate.’’ 10 Grey,
conference under the
137. And on another occasion the

parliamentary law.
Lords made it an objection that the Commons

had asked a free conference after they had made
resolutions of adhering. It was then affirmed,
however, on the part of the Commons that noth-
ing was more parliamentary than to proceed
with free conferences after adhering, 3 Hats.,
269, and we do in fact see instances of con-
ference, or of free conference, asked after the
resolution of disagreeing, 3 Hats., 251, 253, 260,
286, 291, 316, 349; of insisting, ib., 280, 290,
299, 319, 322, 355; of adhering, 269, 270, 283,
300; and even of a second or final adherence. 3
Hats., 270. * * *
[292]
§ 554–§ 556
The two Houses not observing the parliamentary distinctions as to free

and other conferences, their practice in case of adher-
adherence and ence is also different. Conferences are not asked after
conference under the an adherence by both Houses, but have often been
practice of the two asked and granted where only one House has adhered
Houses of Congress.
(V, 6241–6244). A vote to adhere may not be accom-
panied by a request for a conference (V, 6303; VIII, 3208), because the
House that votes to adhere does not ask a conference (V, 6304–6308). The
request for a conference in such a case is properly accompanied by a motion
to insist (V, 6308). And the House that has adhered may insist on its adher-
ence when it agrees to the conference (V, 6251). But it is not considered
necessary either to recede or insist before agreeing to the conference (V,
6242, 6244, 6310, 6311).
* * * And in all cases of conference asked

after a vote of disagreement, &c.,
§ 555. Custody of the
papers after an
the conferees of the House asking it
effective conference.
are to leave the papers with the

conferees of the other; and in one case where
they refused to receive them they were left on
the table in the conference chamber. Ib., 271,
317, 323, 354; 10 Grey, 146.
This principle of the parliamentary law is recognized in both Houses,
and is customarily followed in cases wherein the managers of the con-
ference come to an agreement on which a report may be based (July 31,
1981, p. 18884). If conferees of House agreeing to conference surrender
papers to House asking conference, the report can be received first by
House asking the conference (VIII, 3330). In the 101st Congress, where
a report following a successful conference was filed in both Houses, an
objection to a unanimous-consent request in the Senate prevented the re-
lease of papers held at the Senate desk to the House, where the Senate
in the normal course of events was scheduled to act first on the report
(June 28, 1990, p. 16249).
Where a conference breaks up without reaching any agreement the man-
§ 556. Custody of
agers for the House that requested the conference, who
papers when have the papers by right, are justified in retaining them
managers of a and carrying them back to the House (IV, 3905, foot-
conference fail to note; V, 6246, 6254, 6571–6584; VIII, 3332). And in one
agree.
case wherein under such circumstances the papers
were taken back to the Senate, which was the body agreeing to the con-
ference, the Senate after consideration sent them to the House, because
it seemed proper for the asking House to take the first action (V, 6573).
[293]
§ 557–§ 558
But sometimes managers have brought the papers to the agreeing House
without question (V, 6239, footnote; July 14, 1988, p. 18411).
After a free conference the usage is to proceed

§ 557. Free or with free conferences and not to re-
instructed
conferences. turn again to a conference. 3 Hats.,
270; 9 Grey, 229.
After a conference denied a free conference
may be asked. 1 Grey, 45.
The House instructs its managers whenever it sees fit, without regard
to whether or not the preceding conference has been free or instructed.
When a conference is asked, the subject of it

must be expressed or the conference
law as to purposes for
not agreed to. Ord. H. Com., 89; 1
which conferences
may be held.
Grey, 425; 7 Grey, 31. They are
sometimes asked to inquire concerning an of-
fense or default of a member of the other House.
6 Grey, 181; 1 Chand., 304. Or the failure of the
other House to present to the King a bill passed
by both Houses. 8 Grey, 302. Or on information
received and relating to the safety of the nation.
10 Grey, 171. Or when the methods of Par-
liament are thought by the one House to have
been departed from by the other a conference is
asked to come to a right understanding thereon.
10 Grey, 148. So when an unparliamentary mes-
sage has been sent, instead of answering it they
ask a conference. 3 Grey, 155. Formerly an ad-
dress or articles of impeachment or a bill, with
amendments, or a vote of the House, or concur-
rence in a vote, or a message from the King
were sometimes communicated by way of con-
ference. 6 Grey, 128, 300, 387; 7 Grey, 80; 8
Grey, 210, 255; 1 Torbuck’s Deb., 278; 10 Grey,
[294]
§ 559–§ 562
293; 1 Chandler, 49, 287. But this is not the

modern practice. 8 Grey, 255.
§ 559. Obsolete A conference has been asked after
provision as to
conference on first
the first reading of a bill. 1 Grey,
reading. 194. This is a singular instance.
The House has no procedure conforming to this provision.
SEC. XLVII—MESSAGES
§ 560. Messages sent Messages between the Houses are

only when both
Houses are sitting.
to be sent only while both Houses
are sitting. 3 Hats., 15. * * *
Formerly this rule was observed (V, 6603, 6604), but since the 62d Con-
gress messages have been received by the House when the Senate was
not in session (VIII, 3338). Clause 2 of rule II was added in the 97th Con-
gress, and amended in the 111th Congress, to authorize the Clerk to receive
messages at any time that the House is not in session (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1981, p. 98) or in recess (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
§ 561. Messages * * * They are received during a

received during
debate.
debate without adjourning the de-
bate. 3 Hats., 22.
In the House messages are received during debate, the Member having
the floor yielding on request of the Speaker.
In Senate the messengers are introduced in

any state of business, except: 1.
§ 562. Reception of
messages during
While a question is being put. 2.
voting, in absence of a
quorum, etc.
While the yeas and nays are being
called. 3. While the ballots are being counted.
The first case is short; the second and third are
cases where any interruption might occasion er-
rors difficult to be corrected. So arranged June
15, 1798.
In the House messages are not received while a question is being put
or during a vote by division. However, they are received during the call
of the yeas and nays, during consideration of a question of privilege (V,
6640–6642), during a call of the House (V, 6600), during debate on a motion
[295]
§ 563–§ 565
to approve the Journal (Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23607), and before the organiza-
tion of the House (V, 6647–6649). But the Speaker exercises discretion
about interrupting the pending business (V, 6602).
In the House, as in Parliament, if the House

be in committee when a messenger
§ 563. Informal rising
of Committee of the
Whole to receive a attends, the Speaker takes the
message.
chair to receive the message, and
then quits it to return into committee without
any question or interruption. 4 Grey, 226.
§ 564. Salutation of Messengers are not saluted by
messengers by the
Speaker.
the Members, but by the Speaker
for the House. 2 Grey, 253, 274.
The practice of the House as to reception of messages is founded on
this paragraph of the parliamentary law and on the former joint rules
(V, 6591–6595). The Speaker, with a slight inclination, addresses the mes-
senger, by title, after the messenger, with an inclination, has addressed
the Speaker (V, 6591).
If messengers commit an error in delivering

their message, they may be admit-
§ 565. Correction and
return of messages.
ted or called in to correct their mes-
sage. 4 Grey, 41. Accordingly, March 13, 1800,
the Senate having made two amendments to a
bill from the House, their Secretary, by mistake,
delivered one only, which being inadmissible by
itself, that House disagreed, and notified the
Senate of their disagreement. This produced a
discovery of the mistake. The Secretary was sent
to the other House to correct his mistake, the
correction was received, and the two amend-
ments acted on de novo.
A request of one House for the return of a bill messaged to the other,
or the request of one House to correct an error in its message to the other,
may qualify as privileged in the House or may be disposed of by unanimous
consent (III, 2613; V, 6605; Deschler, ch. 32, § 2; Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172;
May 20, 1996, p. 11809). For example: (1) the House by unanimous consent
agreed to a request from the Senate for the return of a Senate bill, to
[296]
§ 566
the end that the Senate effect a specified (substantive) change in its text
(May 7, 1998, p. 8386) or to the end that the bill be recommitted to com-
mittee (July 15, 2004, p. 15890); (2) the House by unanimous consent di-
rected its Clerk to correct an error in a message to the Senate (V, 6607);
(3) the House, upon receipt of a request by the Senate to return a bill
during consideration of the conference report accompanying that bill, laid
the conference report aside and agreed to the Senate request (V, 6609);
(4) the House requested the return of a message indicating passage of
a Senate joint resolution after learning that both Houses had previously
passed an identical House Joint Resolution, so that it could indefinitely
postpone action thereon (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29587); (5) the Speaker laid
before the House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the
return of a message where it had erroneously appointed conferees to a
bill after the papers had been messaged to the House, so that the message
could be changed to reflect the appointment of Senate conferees (May 20,
1996, p. 11809); (6) the Speaker laid before the House as privileged a mes-
sage from the Senate requesting the return of a Senate bill that included
provisions intruding on the constitutional prerogative of the House to origi-
nate revenue measures (Oct. 19, 1999, p. 25901; Sept. 28, 2004, p. 19724;
Sept. 30, 2004, p. 20045); (7) where the engrossment failed to depict certain
action of the House, the House considered and agreed to a privileged resolu-
tion requesting the Senate to return the engrossment of a House bill (July
15, 2004, p. 15890) and a House-passed Senate bill (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22630);
(8) the Speaker laid before the House as privileged a message from the
Senate requesting the return of Senate amendments to a House bill where
the engrossment failed to properly depict the action of the Senate (July
14, 2005, p. 15932).
As soon as the messenger who has brought

§ 566. Disposal of bills from the other House has re-
messages after
reception. tired, the Speaker holds the bills in
his hand; and acquaints the House
‘‘that the other House have by their messenger
sent certain bills,’’ and then reads their titles,
and delivers them to the Clerk to be safely kept
till they shall be called for to be read. Hakew.,
178.
In the House the message goes to the Speaker’s table for disposition
under clause 2 of rule XIV. The Speaker does not acquaint the House,
because it has already heard the message.
[297]
§ 567–§ 570
It is not the usage for one House to inform the

§ 567. Information by other by what numbers a bill is
message as to bills
passed. passed. 10 Grey, 150. Yet they have
sometimes recommended a bill, as
of great importance, to the consideration of the
House to which it is sent. 3 Hats., 25. * * *
The Houses of Congress do not communicate by what numbers a bill
is passed, or otherwise recommend their bills.
* * * Nor when they have rejected a bill from

§ 568. Information by the other House, do they give notice
message as to
rejection of bills. of it; but it passes sub silentio, to
prevent unbecoming altercations. 1
Blackst., 183.
But in Congress the rejection is notified by
message to the House in which the bill orig-
inated.
In the two Houses of Congress the fact of the rejection of a bill is mes-
saged to the House in which the bill originated, as in the days of Jefferson,
although the joint rule requiring it has disappeared (IV, 3422; V, 6601).
And in a case wherein the House had stricken the enacting words of a
Senate bill, the Senate was notified that the bill had been rejected (IV,
3423; VII, 2638; Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33785–87).
A question is never asked by the one House of

the other by way of message, but
§ 569. Questions asked
by conference, not by
message. only at a conference; for this is an
interrogatory, not a message. 3
Grey, 151, 181.
In 1798 the House asked of the Senate a question by way of conference,
but this appears to be the only instance (V, 6256).
When a bill is sent by one House to the other,

§ 570. Messages as to and is neglected, they may send a
neglected bills.
message to remind them of it. 3
Hats., 25; 5 Grey, 154. But if it be mere inatten-
tion, it is better to have it done informally by
[298]
§ 571–§ 572
communication between the Speakers or Mem-

bers of the two Houses.
It does not appear that either House of Congress has by message re-
minded the other of a neglected bill.
Where the subject of a message is of a nature

that it can properly be commu-
§ 571. Messages from
the President to the
two Houses. nicated to both Houses of Par-
liament, it is expected that this
communication should be made to both on the
same day. But where a message was accom-
panied with an original declaration, signed by
the party to which the message referred, its
being sent to one House was not noticed by the
other, because the declaration being original,
could not possibly be sent to both Houses at the
same time. 2 Hats., 260, 261, 262.
The King having sent original letters to the
Commons afterward desires they may be re-
turned, that he may communicate them to the
Lords. 1 Chandler, 303.
A message of the President of the United States is usually communicated
to both Houses on the same day when its nature permits (V, 6590); but
an original document accompanying can, of course, be sent to but one House
(V, 6616, 6617). The President having by inadvertence included certain
papers in a message, was allowed to withdraw them (V, 6651). In the House
the Speaker has the discretion, which is rarely exercised, to suspend a
roll call in order to receive a message from the President.
SEC. XLVIII—ASSENT
The House which has received a bill and

§ 572. Parliamentary passed it may present it for the
law as to presenting a
bill for the King’s King’s assent, and ought to do it,
assent.
though they have not by message
notified to the other their passage of it. Yet the
notifying by message is a form which ought to be
[299]
§ 573–§ 574
observed between the two Houses from motives

of respect and good understanding. 2 Hats., 242.
Were the bill to be withheld from being pre-
sented to the King, it would be an infringement
of the rules of Parliament. Ib.
In the House it was held that where there had been no unreasonable
delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President, a resolution relating
thereto did not present a question of privilege (III, 2601), but a resolution
seeking such a determination may be privileged (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25761).
When a bill has passed both Houses of Con-

gress, the House last acting on it
law as to enrollment
of bills. notifies its passage to the other,
and delivers the bill to the Joint
Committee on Enrollment, who sees that it is
truly enrolled in parchment. When the bill is en-
rolled it is not to be written in paragraphs, but
solidly, and all of a piece, that the blanks be-
tween the paragraphs may not give room for for-
gery. 9 Grey, 143. * * *
Formerly the enrollment in the House and the Senate was in writing
(IV, 3436, 3437); but in 1893 the two Houses, by concur-
two Houses of rent resolution, provided that bills should be enrolled
Congress as to on parchment by printing instead of by writing, and
enrollment of bills. also that the engrossment of bills before sending them
to the other House for action should be in printing (IV,
3433), and in 1895 this concurrent resolution was approved by statute
(IV, 3435; 1 U.S.C. 106). In the last six days of a session of Congress the
two Houses, by concurrent resolution, may permit the enrolling and en-
grossing to be done by hand (IV, 3435, 3438; H. Con. Res. 436, Dec. 20,
1982, p. 32875; H. Con. Res. 375, Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32149), and such a
concurrent resolution is privileged for consideration in the House during
the last six days of the session (see 1 U.S.C. 106 for authority to waive
ordinary printing requirements at the end of a session), but before the
last six days, a joint resolution waiving the law to permit hand enrollments
is required and may be considered in the House by unanimous consent
(Dec. 10, 1985, p. 35741) or by special order of business (H. Res. 580, Oct.
8, 1998, p. 24735). The two Houses have by joint resolution authorized
not only a ‘‘hand enrollment’’ of a time-sensitive bill but also a parchment
enrollment of the same measure, to be prepared at a later time for deposit
[300]
§ 575–§ 577
in the National Archives with the original (P.L. 100–199, Dec. 21, 1987;
P.L. 100–454, Sept. 29, 1988). Where an enrolled bill enacts another num-
bered bill by reference, that same law may require the Archivist to include
as an appendix to that law the text of the referenced bill (see, e.g., P.L.
106–554). Only in a very exceptional case have the two Houses waived
the requirement that bills shall be enrolled (IV, 3442). The enrolling clerk
should make no change, however unimportant, in the text of a bill to which
the House has agreed (III, 2598); but the two Houses may by concurrent
resolution authorize the correction of an error when enrollment is made
(IV, 3446–3450), and this seems a better practice than earlier methods
by authority of the Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 3444, 3445).
* * * It is then put into the hands of the

Clerk of the House to have it signed
§ 575. Signing of
enrolled bills for
by the Speaker. The Clerk then
presentation to the
President.
brings it by way of message to the
Senate to be signed by their President. The Sec-
retary of the Senate returns it to the Committee
of Enrollment, who present it to the President of
the United States. * * *
The practice of the two Houses of Congress for the signing of enrolled
bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued since those
rules were abrogated in 1876 (IV, 3430). The bills are signed first by the
Speaker, then by the President of the Senate (IV, 3429). Where errors
are found in enrolled bills that have been signed, the two Houses by concur-
rent action may authorize the cancellation of the signatures and a reenroll-
ment (IV, 3453–3459), and in the same way the signatures may be can-
celled on a bill prematurely enrolled (IV, 3454).
A Speaker pro tempore elected by the House (II, 1401), or whose designa-
§ 576. Authority of pro
tion has received the approval of the House (II, 1404;
tempore presiding VI, 277; clause 8 of rule I), signs enrolled bills (see
officers to sign clause 4 of rule I); but a Member merely called to the
enrolled bills. chair during the day (II, 1399, 1400; VI, 276), or des-
ignated in writing by the Speaker, does not exercise
this function (II, 1401).
The Senate, by rule, has empowered a presiding officer by written des-
ignation to sign enrolled bills (II, 1403).
In early days a joint committee took enrolled bills to the President (IV,
§ 577. Presentation of
3432); but in the later practice the chair of the com-
enrolled bills to the mittee in each House that had responsibility for the
President. enrollment of bills also had the responsibility of pre-
senting the bills from that House, and submitted from
his committee daily a report of the bills presented for entry in the Journal
[301]
§ 578–§ 579
(IV, 3431). In the 107th Congress the responsibility in the House for en-
rolled bills was transferred from the Committee on House Administration
to the Clerk (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Enrolled bills pending
at the close of a session have, at the next session of the same Congress,
been ordered to be treated as if no adjournment had taken place (IV, 3487–
3488). Enrolled bills signed by the presiding officers at one session have
been sent to the President and approved at the next session of the same
Congress (IV, 3486). Enrollments presented at the close of the 97th Con-
gress were signed by the President after the convening of the 98th Con-
gress.
SEC. XLIX—JOURNALS
* * * * *
If a question is interrupted by a vote to ad-
§ 578. Obsolete journ, or to proceed to the orders of
provisions as to entry
of motions in the the day, the original question is
journal.
never printed in the journal, it
never having been a vote, nor introductory to
any vote; but when suppressed by the previous
question, the first question must be stated, in
order to introduce and make intelligible the sec-
ond. 2 Hats., 83.
This provision of the parliamentary law is superseded by clause 1 of
rule XVI, which requires every motion entertained by the Speaker to be
entered on the Journal.
So also when a question is postponed, ad-
§ 579. Journal entries journed, or laid on the table, the
of questions
postponed or laid on original question, though not yet a
the table.
vote, must be expressed in the jour-
nals, because it makes part of the vote of post-
ponement, adjourning, or laying it on the table.
In the House a question is not adjourned, except in the sense that it
may be left to go over as unfinished business by reason of a vote to adjourn.
[302]
§ 580–§ 582
Where amendments are made to a question,

those amendments are not printed
§ 580. Entry of
amendments in the
Journal. in the journals, separated from the
question; but only the question as
finally agreed to by the House. The rule of enter-
ing in the journals only what the House has
agreed to, is founded in great prudence and good
sense, as there may be many questions proposed
which it may be improper to publish to the
world in the form in which they are made. 2
Hats., 85.
In the practice of the House a motion to amend is entered on the Journal
as any other motion, under clause 1 of rule XVI.
* * * * *
§ 581. Entry of votes in The first order for printing the
journal of the House
of Commons.
votes of the House of Commons was
October 30, 1685. 1 Chandler, 387.
Some judges have been of opinion that the
§ 582. The Journal as journals of the House of Commons
an official record.
are no records, but only remem-
brances. But this is not law. Hob., 110, 111; Lex.
Parl., 114, 115; Jour. H. C., Mar. 17, 1592; Hale,
Parl., 105. For the Lords in their House have
power of judicature, the Commons in their
House have power of judicature, and both
Houses together have power of judicature; and
the book of the Clerk of the House of Commons
is a record, as is affirmed by act of Parl., 6 H.
8, c. 16; 4 Inst., 23, 24; and every member of the
House of Commons hath a judicial place. 4 Inst.,
15. As records they are open to every person,
and a printed vote of either House is sufficient
ground for the other to notice it. Either may ap-
[303]
§ 583–§ 585
point a committee to inspect the journals of the

other, and report what has been done by the
other in any particular case. 2 Hats., 261; 3
Hats., 27–30. Every member has a right to see
the journals and to take and publish votes from
them. Being a record, every one may see and
publish them. 6 Grey, 118, 119.
The Journal of the House is the official record of the proceedings of the
House (IV, 2727), and certified copies are admitted as evidence in the courts
of the United States (IV, 2810; 28 U.S.C. 1736). A Senate committee con-
cluded that the Journal entries of a legislative body were conclusive as
to all the proceedings had, and might not be contradicted by ex parte evi-
dence (I, 563).
On information of a misentry or omission of

§ 583. Correction of an entry in the journal, a com-
the Journal through a
committee. mittee may be appointed to exam-
ine and rectify it, and report it to
the House. 2 Hats., 194, 195.
SEC. L—ADJOURNMENT
The two Houses of Parliament have the sole,

separate, and independent power of
law as to adjournment
adjourning each their respective
of the Commons and
Lords.
Houses. The King has no authority
to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire,
and it is in the wisdom and prudence of either
House to comply with his requisition, or not, as
they see fitting. 2 Hats., 232; 1 Blackst., 186; 5
Grey, 122.
* * * * *
A motion to adjourn, simply cannot be amend-
§ 585. Motion to ed, as by adding ‘‘to a particular
adjourn not to be
amended. day;’’ but must be put simply ‘‘that
this House do now adjourn;’’ and if
[304]
§ 586
carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the

next sitting day, unless it has come to a previous
resolution, ‘‘that at its rising it will adjourn to a
particular day,’’ and then the House is ad-
journed to that day. 2 Hats., 82.
The modern practice of the House adheres to this principle (§§ 912, 913,
infra). Clause 4 of rule XVI admits at the discretion of the Speaker a sepa-
rate motion of equal privilege that when the House adjourns on that day
it stand adjourned to a day and time certain (consistent with article I,
section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, not in excess of three days).
Where it is convenient that the business of the

House be suspended for a short
§ 586. Motion for a
recess.
time, as for a conference presently
to be held, &c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2
Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an hour. 4 Grey,
331.
An adjournment during pleasure is effected in the House by a motion
for a recess. A recess may not be taken by less than a quorum (IV, 2958–
2960), and consequently the motion for it is not in order in the absence
of a quorum (IV, 2955–2957). When the hour previously fixed for a recess
arrives, the Chair declares the House in recess even in the midst of a
division or when a quorum is not present (IV, 664; V, 6665, 6666); but
a roll call is not in this way interrupted (V, 6054, 6055). Where a special
order requires a recess at a certain hour of a certain day, the recess is
not taken if the encroachment of a prior legislative day prevents the exist-
ence of said certain day as a legislative day (IV, 3192). And an adjournment
at a time before the hour fixed for a recess vacates the recess (IV, 3283).
A motion for a recess must, when entertained, be voted on, even though
the taking of the vote may have been prevented until after the hour speci-
fied for the conclusion of the proposed recess (V, 6667). A Committee of
the Whole takes a recess only by permission of the House (V, 6669–6671;
VIII, 3362). The motion for a recess is not privileged (V, 4302, 5301, 6740),
in the House or in Committee of the Whole (June 26, 1981, p. 14356) against
a demand that business proceed in the regular order (V, 6663; VIII, 3354–
3356). However, beginning in the 102d Congress a motion to authorize
the Speaker to declare a recess was given a privilege equal to that of the
motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule XVI); and beginning in the 103d Con-
gress the Speaker was authorized to declare a recess ‘‘for a short time
when no question is pending’’ (clause 12 of rule I). For the Speaker’s author-
ity to declare an emergency recess when notified of an imminent threat
to the safety of the House, see § 639, infra.
[305]
§ 587–§ 588
If a question be put for adjournment, it is no

§ 587. Adjournment adjournment till the Speaker pro-
pronounced by the
Speaker. nounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from
courtesy and respect, no member
leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on.
SEC. LI—A SESSION
Parliament have three modes of separation, to

wit: by adjournment, by prorogation
§ 588. Sessions of
Parliament.
or dissolution by the King, or by the
efflux of the term for which they were elected.
Prorogation or dissolution constitutes there what
is called a session; provided some act was
passed. In this case all matters depending before
them are discontinued, and at their next meet-
ing are to be taken up de novo, if taken up at
all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment, which is by
themselves, is no more than a continuance of the
session from one day to another, of for a fort-
night, a month, &c., ad libitum. All matters de-
pending remain in statu quo, and when they
meet again, be the term ever so distant, are re-
sumed, without any fresh commencement, at the
point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex.
Parl., c. 2; 1 Ro. Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28;
Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252; Ruffh. Jac., L. Dict. Par-
liament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session is
considered in law but as one day, and has rela-
tion to the first day thereof. Bro. Abr. Par-
liament, 86.
[306]
§ 589–§ 590
Committees may be appointed to sit during a

§ 589. Sitting of recess by adjournment, but not by
committees in
recesses and creation prorogation. 5 Grey, 374; 9 Grey,
of commissions to sit
after Congress
350; 1 Chandler, 50. Neither House
adjourns. can continue any portion of itself in
any parliamentary function beyond
the end of the session without the consent of the
other two branches. When done, it is by a bill
constituting them commissioners for the par-
ticular purpose.
The House may empower a committee to sit during a recess that is within
the constitutional term of the House (IV, 4541–4543), but not thereafter
(IV, 4545). A commission created by law may operate beyond the term
of the Congress in which it was created (IV, 4545). Under clause 2(m)(1)(A)
of rule XI, all committees are authorized to sit and act anywhere within
the United States, and to issue subpoenas, whether the House is in session
or has adjourned to a date certain or adjourned sine die, even after the
second regular session of a Congress until the end of the constitutional
term. Under clause 1(b)(4) of rule XI, all committees are authorized to
file investigative reports and annual activities reports following adjourn-
ment sine die.
Congress separate in two ways only, to wit, by

§ 590. Sessions and adjournment, or dissolution by the
recesses of Congress.
efflux of their time. What, then,
constitutes a session with them? A dissolution
certainly closes one session, and the meeting of
the new Congress begins another. The Constitu-
tion authorizes the President, ‘‘on extraordinary
occasions to convene both Houses, or either of
them.’’ I. 3. If convened by the President’s proc-
lamation, this must begin a new session, and of
course determine the preceding one to have been
a session. So if it meets under the clause of the
Constitution which says, ‘‘the Congress shall as-
semble at least once in every year, and such
[307]
§ 591
meeting shall be on the first Monday in Decem-

ber, unless they shall by law appoint a different
day.’’ I. 4. This must begin a new session; for
even if the last adjournment was to this day the
act of adjournment is merged in the higher au-
thority of the Constitution, and the meeting will
be under that, and not under their adjournment.
So far we have fixed landmarks for determining
sessions. * * *
The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, clause 2, now provides
that the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, at noon on
the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812,
as amended by section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,
84 Stat. 1140, provides that except in time of war the two Houses shall
adjourn sine die not later than the last day of July (Sundays excepted)
unless otherwise provided by the Congress. (For form of resolution used
to continue in session past July 31, see H. Con. Res. 648, 92d Cong., July
25, 1972, p. 25145.) The same section contemplates an adjournment of
Congress from the thirtieth day before to the second day following Labor
Day in the first session of a Congress (each odd-numbered year) in lieu
of an adjournment sine die. See § 1106, infra. Congress is adjourned for
more than three days by a concurrent resolution (IV, 4031, footnote), and
such adjournments to a day certain, within the session, do not terminate
the session (V, 6676, 6677). In one instance the two Houses by concurrent
resolution provided for adjournment to a day certain with the provision
that if there be no quorum present on that day the session should terminate
(V, 6686). Before the adoption of the twentieth amendment it had become
established practice that a meeting of Congress once within the year did
not make uncertain the constitutional mandate to meet on the first Monday
of December (I, 10, 11). And where a special session continued until the
time prescribed by the Constitution for the annual meeting without an
appreciable intervening time (V, 6690, 6692), a question arose as to wheth-
er there had actually been a recess of Congress (V, 6687, 6693), with the
conclusion that a recess was a real and not an imaginary time (V, 6687).
* * * In other cases it is declared by the joint

vote authorizing the President of
§ 591. Manner of
closing a session by
the Senate and the Speaker to close
action of the two
Houses.
the session on a fixed day, which is
usually in the following form: ‘‘Resolved by the
[308]
§ 592–§ 593
Senate and House of Representatives, that the

President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives be authorized to close
the present session by adjourning their respec-
tive Houses on the ll day of ll.’’
In the modern practice the resolving clause of the concurrent resolution
is in form different from that given by Jefferson. For a history and chro-
nology of adjournment resolutions, see § 84, supra.
When it was said above that all matters de-

§ 592. Parliamentary pending before Parliament were
law as to business at
the termination of a discontinued by the determination
session.
of the session, it was not meant for
judiciary cases depending before the House of
Lords, such as impeachments, appeals, and
writs of error. These stand continued, of course,
to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac.,
L. D., Parliament.
Impeachments stand, in like manner, contin-
ued before the Senate of the United States.
For a discussion of continuance of impeachments, see § 620, infra.
SEC. LII—TREATIES
* * * * *
Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the
§ 593. General nature law of the land. It differs from other
of treaties.
laws only as it must have the con-
sent of a foreign nation, being but a contract
with respect to that nation. In all countries, I
believe, except England, treaties are made by
the legislative power; and there, also, if they
touch the laws of the land they must be ap-
proved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3
Dallas’s Rep., 223. It is acknowledged, for in-
[309]
§ 594
stance, that the King of Great Britain cannot by

a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1,
c. 19, sec. 214. An act of Parliament was nec-
essary to validate the American treaty of 1783.
And abundant examples of such acts can be
cited. In the case of the treaty of Utrecht, in
1712, the commercial articles required the con-
currence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for
that purpose was rejected. France, the other con-
tracting party, suffered these articles, in prac-
tice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the
rest of the treaty. 4 Russell’s Hist. Mod. Europe,
457; 2 Smollet, 242, 246.
By the Constitution of the United States this
§ 594. Jefferson’s department of legislation is con-
discussion of treaties
under the fined to two branches only of the or-
Constitution.
dinary legislature—the President
originating and the Senate having a negative. To
what subjects this power extends has not been
defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we
entirely agreed among ourselves. 1. It is admit-
ted that it must concern the foreign nation party
to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, res
inter alias acta. 2. By the general power to make
treaties, the Constitution must have intended to
comprehend only those subjects which are usu-
ally regulated by treaty, and can not be other-
wise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except
out of these the rights reserved to the States; for
surely the President and Senate can not do by
treaty what the whole Government is interdicted
from doing in any way. 4. And also to except
those subjects of legislation in which it gave a
[310]
§ 595–§ 596
participation to the House. This last exception is

denied by some on the ground that it would
leave very little matter for the treaty power to
work on. The less the better, say others. The
Constitution thought it wise to restrain the exec-
utive and Senate from entangling and embroil-
ing our affairs with those of Europe. Besides, as
the negotiations are carried on by the executive
alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the
representatives such articles as are within their
participation is no more inconvenient than to
the Senate. But the ground of this exception is
denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the trea-
ty of commerce with France, and it will be found
that, out of thirty-one articles, there are not
more than small portions of two or three of them
which would not still remain as subjects of trea-
ties, untouched by these exceptions.
The participation of the House in the treaty-making power has been
§ 595. General action
often examined since Jefferson’s Manual was written.
of the House as to The House has in several instances taken action in car-
treaties. rying into effect, terminating, enforcing, and suggesting
treaties (II, 1502–1505, 1520–1522), although some-
times the propriety of requesting the executive to negotiate a treaty has
been questioned (II, 1514–1517).
The exact authority of the House in the making of general treaties has
§ 596. Authority of the
been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the
House as to treaties in House affirmed that, when a treaty related to subjects
general. within the power of Congress, it was the constitutional
duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency of
carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a discussion
with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a treaty must
depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such stipulations as
relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to Congress (II, 1506). In 1868
the House’s assertion of right to a voice in carrying out the stipulations
of certain treaties was conceded in a modified form (II, 1508). Again, in
1871, the House asserted its prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there
were discussions of the House’s functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring
[311]
§ 597–§ 600
foreign territory (II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have
been discussions of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324–326).
After long and careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the
§ 597. Authority of the
House decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of
House as to revenue the Government might not conclude a treaty affecting
treaties. the revenue without the assent of the House (II, 1528–
1530), and a Senate committee after examination con-
cluded that duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of con-
gressional action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified
by the Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on
revenue treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation
of a revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other times
the subject has been discussed (II, 1525–1528, 1531, 1533).
After long discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its right
§ 598. House approves
to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536),
Indian treaties. although in earlier times this prerogative had been jeal-
ously guarded by the executive (II, 1534).
There have been various conflicts with the executive over requests of
the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509–1513, 1518, 1519, 1561).
Treaties being declared, equally with the laws

§ 599. Treaties of the United States, to be the su-
abrogated by law.
preme law of the land, it is under-
stood that an act of the legislature alone can de-
clare them infringed and rescinded. This was ac-
cordingly the process adopted in the case of
France in 1798.
Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is authorized
by a joint resolution (V, 6270). A resolution alleging an unconstitutional
abrogation of a treaty by the President, and calling on the President to
seek the approval of Congress before such abrogation, does not constitute
a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (June 6, 2002,
pp. 9492–98 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).
It has been the usage for the Executive, when

§ 600. Procedure of the it communicates a treaty to the
Senate as to treaties.
Senate for their ratification, to com-
municate also the correspondence of the nego-
tiators. This having been omitted in the case of
the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the
House of February 12, 1800, and was obtained.
[312]
§ 601
And in December, 1800, the convention of that

year between the United States and France,
with the report of the negotiations by the en-
voys, but not their instructions, being laid before
the Senate, the instructions were asked for and
communicated by the President.
The mode of voting on questions of ratification
is by nominal call.
The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.
SEC. LIII—IMPEACHMENT
* * * * *
These are the provisions of the Constitution of
§ 601. Jurisdiction of the United States on the subject of
Lords and Commons
as to impeachments. impeachments. The following is a
sketch of some of the principles and
practices of England on the same subject:
Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any
to themselves, nor join in the accusation, be-
cause they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl.,
12, 63. Nor can they proceed against a com-
moner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84.
The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner
for a capital offense, on the information of the
King or a private person, because the accused is
entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on
accusation by the House of Commons, they may
proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the of-
fense; for there they do not assume to them-
selves trial at common law. The Commons are
then instead of a jury, and the judgment is given
on their demand, which is instead of a verdict.
[313]
§ 602–§ 603
So the Lords do only judge, but not try the delin-

quent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a
commoner can now be charged capitally before
the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
Fitzharris’s case, 1681, impeached of high trea-
son, where the Lords remitted the prosecution to
the inferior court. 8 Grey’s Deb., 325–7; 2
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618,
1619, 1641; 4 Blackst., 25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73
Seld., 1604–18.
Accusation. The Commons, as the grand in-
§ 602. Parliamentary quest of the nation, becomes suitors
law as to accusation
in impeachment. for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6
Grey, 356. The general course is to
pass a resolution containing a criminal charge
against the supposed delinquent, and then to di-
rect some member to impeach him by oral accu-
sation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the
name of the Commons. The person signifies that
the articles will be exhibited, and desires that
the delinquent may be sequestered from his
seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take
order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2
Wood., 602, 605; Lords’ Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1
Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.
In the House various events have been credited with setting an impeach-
ment in motion: charges made on the floor on the re-
§ 603. Inception of
impeachment sponsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342,
proceedings in the 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); charges pre-
House. ferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a
committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496,
2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred
to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a message
from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges transmitted from
the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory (III, 2487) or from a grand
jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and reported by an investigating com-
[314]
§ 604
mittee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice Presi-
dent sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges against
him of possibly impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took
no action on the request because the matter was pending in the courts
and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice President’s
term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee
on the Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged reso-
lution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for acts
or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other hand, in
1826 the Vice President’s request that the House investigate charges
against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on mo-
tion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9, 1998, an inde-
pendent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a commu-
nication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the Presi-
dent. The House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee
on Rules referring the communication to the Committee on the Judiciary,
restricting Members’ access to the communication, and restricting access
to committee meetings and hearings on the communication (H. Res. 525,
Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged resolution
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment
inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). The author-
ity to appoint an independent counsel under 28 U.S.C. 573 expired on
June 30, 1999.
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the
§ 604. A proposition to
House and at once supersedes business otherwise in
impeach a question of order under the rules governing the order of business
privilege. (III, 2045–2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986,
p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814;
Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560–62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10, 2008, p.
l; July 15, 2008, p. l; see Deschler, ch. 14, § 8). It may not even be
superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege
(III, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar propo-
sition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Con-
gress (III, 2408; July 15, 2008, l (see June 10, 2008, l)), previous action
of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of the Committee
on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is filed from
the floor as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819), and is called up as privi-
leged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828). The addition of new articles of impeachment
offered by the managers but not reported by committee are also privileged
(III, 2401), as is a proposition to refer to committee the papers and testi-
mony in an impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). To a privi-
leged resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead cen-
sure, which is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p.
28107). On several occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been
referred a question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that im-
peachment was not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a
[315]
§ 605
question of privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, § 1.3). Under 28 U.S.C. 596(a) an

independent counsel appointed to investigate the President may be im-
peached; and a resolution impeaching such independent counsel constitutes
a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998,
p. 21560).
Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are privi-
leged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2, 1987, p. 33720;
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing for selection of man-
agers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112), proposing
abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers
for impeachment proceedings continued in the Senate from the previous
Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 14), empowering managers
to hire special legal and clerical personnel and providing for their pay,
and to carry out other responsibilities (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998,
p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and replacing an excused manager (Feb.
7, 1989, p. 1726); but a resolution simply proposing an investigation, even
though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged (III,
2050, 2546; VI, 463).
Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or
suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051, 2052,
2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the Judici-
ary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and investing
the committee with special investigative authorities to facilitate the inquiry
(III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14, §§ 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581,
Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to which has been referred privileged
resolutions for the impeachment of an officer may call up as privileged
resolutions incidental to consideration of the impeachment question, in-
cluding conferral of subpoena authority and funding of the investigation
from the contingent fund (now referred to as ‘‘applicable accounts of the
House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X’’) (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p.
2349). Similarly, a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel
in an impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to
impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).
The impeachment having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342,
§ 605. Investigation of
2400; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting
impeachment charges. impeachment having been made by memorial (III, 2495,
2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even appearing through com-
mon fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times ordered an investigation
at once. At other times it has refrained from ordering investigation until
the charges had been examined by a committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491,
2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has referred to committee an impeachment reso-
lution raised as a question of privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 11,
2008, p. l). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced through the
hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer have been re-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions calling for an
investigation by that committee or by a select committee with a view to-
[316]
§ 606–§ 607
ward impeachment have been referred to the Committee on Rules (Oct.

23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon receipt of a communication from an independent
counsel transmitting to the House under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a communication
containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President, the
House adopted a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring
the communication to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct a review
(H. Res. 525, 106th Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House
adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary
authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct.
8, 1998, pp. 24679, 24735).
The House has always examined the charges by its own committee before
§ 606. Procedure of
it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This
committee in committee has sometimes been a select committee (III,
investigating. 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes a standing committee
(III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee has
made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 2511);
but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in favor
of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-examine (III,
2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 2470, 2501, 2511,
2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept. 105–830, Dec. 16, 1998).
The Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the decision
of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House, the chair
of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the committee’s
report containing the articles of impeachment approved by the committee
but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The House there-
upon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the committee’s action on
a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of the President’s resigna-
tion; (2) accepting the report and authorizing its printing, with additional
views; and (3) commending the chair and members of the committee for
their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361).
During the pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate
§ 606a. Procedure of
may include references to personal misconduct on the
House in considering. part of the President but may not include language gen-
erally abusive toward the President and may not in-
clude comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House
or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A resolution setting forth separate
articles of impeachment may be divided among the articles (e.g., Dec. 19,
1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p. l).
Its committee on investigation having reported, the House may vote the
§ 607. Impeachment
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2,
carried to the Senate. 1936, pp. 3067–91), and, after having notified the Sen-
ate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may direct the im-
peachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a single Member
(III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), or five (III, 2445) or nine
[317]
§ 608–§ 608a
(July 22, 1986, p. 17306) or 13 (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members
in two notable cases represented the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19,
1998, p. 28112), but ordinarily include representation of the minority party
(III, 2445, 2472, 2505). Under early practice the House elected managers
by ballot (III, 2300, 2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the Speaker
appointed the managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an order of
the House (III, 2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a resolution
appointing managers. In the later practice the House considers together
the resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936,
pp. 3067–91) and following their adoption adopts resolutions electing man-
agers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate of
the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing the man-
agers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate (VI, 500, 514,
517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988,
p. 20206). These privileged incidental resolutions may be merged into a
single indivisible privileged resolution (H. Res. 614, Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112;
H. Res. 10, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240).
Process. If the party do not appear, proclama-
tions are to be issued, giving him a
§ 608. Impeachment
process in the Senate.
day to appear. On their return they
are strictly examined. If any error be found in
them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short
day. If he appear not, his goods may be arrested,
and they may proceed. Seld. Jud. 98, 99.
Under an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate informed the
House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive
§ 608a. Senate
impeachment the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting arti-
proceedings against cles of impeachment against President Clinton (Jan. 6,
President Clinton. 1999, p. 37). At the appointed hour the House managers
were announced and escorted into the Senate chamber
by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers pre-
sented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows:
(1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 10, Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272); and
(2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 611, Jan. 7, 1999, p. 273).
Thereupon, the managers requested the Senate take order for trial (Jan.
7, 1999, p. 273).
The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment pro-
ceedings of President Clinton (S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349). Later it
adopted a second resolution governing the remaining proceedings (S. Res.
30, Jan. 28, 1999, p. 1843). The first resolution issued the summons in
the usual form. It also provided a timetable for (1) the filing of an answer
by the President; (2) the filing of a reply by the House, together with the
record consisting of publicly available materials that had been submitted
[318]
§ 608a
to or produced by the House Judiciary Committee (the resolution further

directed that the record be admitted into evidence, printed, and made avail-
able to Senators); (3) the filing of a trial brief by the House; (4) the filing
of any motions permitted under the rules of impeachment (except for mo-
tions to subpoena witnesses or to present evidence not in the record); (5)
the filing of responses to any such motions; (6) the filing of a trial brief
by the President; (7) the filing of a rebuttal brief by the House; and (8)
arguments on such motions. The resolution then directed the Senate to
dispose of any such motions and established a further timetable for (1)
the House to make its presentation in support of the articles of impeach-
ment (such argument to be confined to the record); (2) the President to
make his presentation in opposition to the articles of impeachment; and
(3) the Senators to question the parties. The resolution directed the Senate,
upon completion of that phase of the proceedings, to dispose of a motion
to dismiss, and if defeated, to dispose of a motion to subpoena witnesses
or to present any evidence not in the record. The resolution further pro-
vided that, if the motion to call witnesses were adopted, the witnesses
would first be deposed and then the Senate would decide which witnesses
should testify. It further provided that if the Senate failed to dismiss the
case, the parties would proceed to present evidence. Finally, the resolution
directed the Senate to vote on each article of impeachment at the conclusion
of the deliberations. The evidentiary record (summons, answer, replies,
and trial briefs) was printed in the Record by unanimous consent (Jan.
14, 1999, p. 357). Pursuant to the previous order of the Senate (S. Res.
16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349), the House managers were recognized for 24 hours
to present their case in support of conviction and removal (Jan. 14, 1999,
p. 521); counsel for the President was then recognized for 24 hours to
present the President’s defense (Jan. 19, 1999, p. 1055); and Senators sub-
mitted questions in writing of either the House managers or the President’s
counsel (which were read by the Chief Justice, alternating between parties)
for a period not to exceed 16 hours (Jan. 22, 1999, p. 1244). The Chief
Justice ruled that a House manager could not object to a question although
he could object to an answer (Jan. 22, 1999, p. 1250; Jan. 23, 1999, p.
1320). The Senate adopted a motion to consider a motion to dismiss in
executive session (Jan. 25, 1999, p. 1339), and the motion to dismiss was
defeated (Jan. 27, 1999, p. 1397). The Senate adopted a motion to consider
a motion of the House managers to subpoena witnesses in executive session
(Jan. 26, 1999, p. 1370). The Senate adopted that motion, which: (1) author-
ized the issuance of subpoenas for depositions of three witnesses; (2) admit-
ted miscellaneous documents into the trial record; and (3) petitioned the
Senate to request the appearance of the President at a deposition (Jan.
26, 1999, p. 1370).
The Senate subsequently adopted a resolution governing the remaining
impeachment proceedings as follows: (1) establishment of a timetable for
conducting and reviewing depositions, resolving any objections made dur-
ing the depositions, and considering motions to admit any portions of the
[319]
§ 608a
depositions into evidence; (2) consideration of motions for additional dis-

covery (if made by the two Leaders jointly); (3) disposition of motions gov-
erning the presentation of evidence or witnesses before the Senate and
motions by the President’s counsel (specifically precluding a motion to re-
open the record and specifically permitting a motion to allow final delibera-
tions in open session); (4) establishment of a timetable to vote on the arti-
cles of impeachment; and (5) authorization to issue subpoenas to take cer-
tain depositions and to establish procedures for conducting depositions (S.
Res. 30, Jan. 28, 1999, p. 1453). The Senate adopted two parts of a divided
motion as follows: (1) permitting the House managers to admit transcripts
and videotapes of oral depositions into evidence (Feb. 4, 1999, p. 1817);
and (2) permitting the parties to present before the Senate for an equally
divided specified period of time portions of videotapes or oral depositions
admitted into evidence, having first rejected a preemptive motion to restrict
the House managers’ presentation of evidence to written transcripts (Feb.
4, 1999, p. 1817). The Senate rejected the portion of the divided motion
that would have authorized a subpoena for the appearance of a named
witness (Feb. 4, 1999, p. 1827). During debate on the motion, the Senate,
by unanimous consent, permitted the House managers and counsel for the
President to make references to videotaped oral depositions (Feb. 4, 1999,
p. 1817). The Senate rejected two additional motions as follows: (1) a motion
to proceed directly to closing arguments and an immediate vote on the
articles of impeachment (Feb. 4, 1999, p. 1827); and (2) a motion that the
House managers provide written notice to counsel for the President by
a time certain of those portions of videotaped deposition testimony they
planned to use during their evidentiary presentation or during closing ar-
guments (Feb. 4, 1999, p. 1827). By unanimous consent the Senate printed
certain deposition transcripts in the Record and transmitted to the House
managers and the counsel for the President deposition transcripts and
videotapes (Feb. 4, 1999, p. 1827). The Chief Justice held inadmissible
a portion of a videotaped deposition not entered as evidence into the Senate
record (other portions of which were admitted under an order of the Sen-
ate), and a unanimous-consent request nevertheless to admit that portion
of a deposition was objected to (Feb. 6, 1999, p. 1954). After closing argu-
ments, the Senate adopted a motion to consider the articles of impeachment
in closed session (Feb. 9, 1999, p. 2055). After closed deliberations the
Senate Clerk read the articles of impeachment in open session, and each
Senator voted ‘‘guilty’’ or ‘‘not guilty’’ on each article (Feb. 12, 1999, p.
2375). By votes of 45–55 and 50–50 respectively, the Senate adjudged Presi-
dent Clinton not guilty on each article of impeachment (Feb. 12, 1999,
p. 2375). The Senate communicated to the House and the Secretary of
State the judgment of the Senate (Feb. 12, 1999, p. 2375).
See S. Doc. 93–102, ‘‘Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials
in the United States Senate,’’ for precedents relating to the conduct of
Senate impeachments.
[320]
§ 609
Articles. The accusation (articles) of the Com-

§ 609. Exhibition and mons is substituted in place of an
form of articles.
indictment. Thus, by the usage of
Parliament, in impeachment for writing or
speaking, the particular words need not be spec-
ified. Sach. Tr., 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords’
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.
Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House
and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House exhib-
ited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar of the
Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of impeachment
have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously in the Senate
by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485–88; Oct. 7, 1986,
p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are elected by the
House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517; Mar. 2, 1936, pp.
3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388, 2475), carry the articles
in obedience to a resolution of the House (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the
bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449, 2476), the House having previously
informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448) and received a message informing
them of the readiness of the latter body to receive the articles (III, 2078,
2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited
the articles the managers return and report verbally to the House (III,
2449, 2476).
The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although
attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment
(III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the arti-
cles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and accumulated
separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; Apr. 17, 1936,
p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and attested by the
Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the practice of the House
(III, 2420, 2449, 2476).
Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may
be subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30,
1936, pp. 4597–99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of im-
peachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for consideration
when reported by the managers on the part of the House (VI, 520; Mar.
30, 1936, p. 4597).
For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of impeach-
ment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see § 175, supra
(accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion of the presentation
of the House managers in support of the impeachment of President Clinton,
and related matters, see § 608a, supra.
[321]
§ 610–§ 611
Appearance. If he appear, and the case be cap-

§ 610. Parliamentary ital, he answers in custody; though
law as to appearance
of respondent. not if the accusation be general. He
is not to be committed but on spe-
cial accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only,
he answers, a lord in his place, a commoner at
the bar, and not in custody, unless, on the an-
swer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he
finds sureties to attend, and lest he should fly.
Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the articles is given
him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb.,
379. On a misdemeanor, his appearance may be
in person, or he may answer in writing, or by at-
torney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on ac-
cusation for a misdemeanor is, that in such a
state of liberty or restraint as the party is when
the Commons complain of him, in such he is to
answer. Ib., 101. If previously committed by the
commons, he answers as a prisoner. But this
may be called in some sort judicium parium
suorum. Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a
right to counsel by the common law, but not in
capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.
This paragraph of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete so far as
§ 611. Requirements of
the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned.
the Senate as to The accused may appear in person or by attorney (III,
appearance of 2127, 2349, 2424), and take the stand (VI, 511, 524;
respondent. Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370–86; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29149), or
may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case
the accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be
compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of ‘‘not
guilty.’’ The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles and notifies
the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an answer (III,
2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III, 2129), and in
one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was insane, the counsel
[322]
§ 612
of his son was admitted to be heard and present evidence in support of

the petition, but not to make argument (III, 2333). For a discussion of
answers, arguments, and presentations of the respondent in the Clinton
impeachment proceedings, see § 608a, supra.
The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House attend
in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand that proc-
ess issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), after which
they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 2451; VI, 501).
The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the day of return
(III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and in a case wherein
the respondent did not appear by person or attorney the Senate published
a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But the respondent’s goods
were not attached. In only one case has the parliamentary law as to seques-
tration and committal been followed (III, 2118, 2296), later inquiry result-
ing in the conclusion that the Senate had no power to take into custody
the body of the accused (III, 2324, 2367).
Answer. The answer need not observe great

§ 612. Answer of strictness of the form. He may
respondent.
plead guilty as to part, and defend
as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny
the whole or give a particular answer to each ar-
ticle separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 Rush., 1374; 12
Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords’ Journ., 13 Nov., 1643;
2 Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in
bar to the impeachment. 2 Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr.,
735.
In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one, deny-
ing some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set forth
impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others (III, 2428).
The form of this answer was commented on during preparation of the rep-
lication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings on the impeach-
ment of President Clinton, the answer of the President also took up the
articles one by one, denying some of the charges and admitting others
but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses (Jan. 14, 1999, pp.
359–361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges on the ground
that they were not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution
(III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as to the jurisdiction
of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the pleadings, and exhibits
in the nature of evidence may not properly be attached thereto (III, 2124).
The answer of the respondent in impeachment proceedings is messaged
[323]
§ 613–§ 614
to the House and subsequently referred to the managers on the part of

the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6, 1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).
For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in
the Clinton impeachment proceedings, see § 608a, supra.
Replication, rejoinder, &c. There may be a rep-

§ 613. Other pleadings. lication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud.,
114; 8 Grey’s Deb., 233; Sach. Tr.,
15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640–1.
A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern prac-
tice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the pleadings pro-
ceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III, 2455). A respondent
also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the merits (III, 2461), but
there was objection to this and the Senate barely permitted it. In another
case respondent interposed a plea as to jurisdiction of offenses charged
in certain articles, but declined to admit that it was a demurrer with the
admissions pertinent thereto (III, 2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the
House was sustained in averring in pleadings as to jurisdiction matters
not averred in the articles (III, 2123). The right of the House to allege
in the replication matters not touched in the articles has been discussed
(III, 2457). In the Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971)
impeachment proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared
and submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by
the House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider
in closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g.,
to declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive evi-
dence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as the
standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the impeach-
ment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those motions (Oct.
7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).
For a chronology in the Senate of disposition of motions permitted under
Senate impeachment rules, see § 608a, supra.
Witnesses. The practice is to swear the wit-

§ 614. Examination of nesses in open House, and then ex-
witnesses.
amine them there; or a committee
may be named, who shall examine them in com-
mittee, either on interrogatories agreed on in the
House, or such as the committee in their discre-
tion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.
In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in open
Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested (III,
[324]
§ 615
2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 4533). In
the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for impeachment trials
to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the Senate, to appoint
a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in the trial of any
impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of Judge Claiborne the
Senate directed the appointment of a committee of twelve Senators to take
evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of the Rules of Procedure and
Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481,
Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224
(1993), the Supreme Court refused to declare unconstitutional the appoint-
ment of such a committee to take evidence and testimony.
For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see § 608a, supra.
Jury. In the case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury

§ 615. Relation of jury was impaneled for her trial before a
trial to impeachment.
committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this
was on a complaint, not on impeachment by the
Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must also have
been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spir-
itual sat in the case, which they do on mis-
demeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148.
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands
and goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the
only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for
misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the de-
linquent doth put himself on the trial of his
country, a jury ought to be impaneled, and he
adds that it is not so on impeachment by the
Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there
no jury ought to be impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld.
Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the murder
of L. 2, on an information on the part of the
King, and not on impeachment of the Commons;
for then they had been patria sua. He waived
his peerage, and was tried by a jury of
Gloucestershire and Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1
[325]
§ 615a
H., 7, the Commons protest that they are not to

be considered as parties to any judgment given,
or hereafter to be given in Parliament. Id., 133.
They have been generally and more justly con-
sidered, as is before stated, as the grand jury;
for the conceit of Selden is certainly not accu-
rate, that they are the patria sua of the accused,
and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It
is undeniable that they do try; for they examine
witnesses as to the facts, and acquit or condemn,
according to their own belief of them. And Lord
Hale says, ‘‘the peers are judges of law as well
as of fact;’’ 2 Hale, P. C., 275; Consequently of
fact as well as of law.
No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the Constitu-
tion (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the Senate overruled
the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided that it sat for impeach-
ment trials as the Senate and not as a court (III, 2057), and eliminated
from its rules all mention of itself as a ‘‘high court of impeachment’’ (III,
2079, 2082). However, the modern view of the Senate as a court was evident
during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. There the Senate con-
vened as a ‘‘Court of Impeachment’’ (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In
response to an objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that
the Senate was not sitting as a ‘‘jury’’ but was sitting as a ‘‘court’’ during
the impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers
were directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ‘‘jurors’’ (Jan.
15, 1999, p. 580).
An anxiety lest the Chief Justice might have a vote in the approaching
§ 615a. The presiding
trial of the President seems to have prompted this ear-
officer. lier action (III, 2057). There was examination of the
question of the Chief Justice’s power to vote (III, 2098);
but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he did in
fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067). Under the earlier
practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief Justice be sworn
when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief Justice had the oath admin-
istered by an associate justice (III, 2422). The President pro tempore of
the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of the Senate, appointed a com-
mittee to escort the Chief Justice into the Senate chamber to preside over
the impeachment trial of President Clinton, administered the oath to him,
[326]
§ 615b–§ 617
and the Chief Justice in turn administered the oath to the Senators (Jan.
7, 1999, p. 272).
In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United
States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice
President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337,
2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial
only (III, 2089, 2477).
Senators elected after the beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn
§ 615b. Oath and
as in the case of other Senators (III, 2375). The quorum
quorum. of the Senate sitting for an impeachment trial is a
quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a quorum
of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote required for convic-
tion is two-thirds of those Senators present and voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p.
25335). In 1868, when certain States were without representation, the Sen-
ate declined to question its competency to try an impeachment case (III,
2060). The President pro tempore of the Senate administered the oath
to the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial of President Clin-
ton, and the Chief Justice in turn administered the oath to the Senators
(Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).
Presence of Commons. The Commons are to be

§ 616. Attendance of present at the examination of wit-
the Commons.
nesses. Seld. Jud., 124. Indeed,
they are to attend throughout, either as a com-
mittee of the whole House, or otherwise, at dis-
cretion, appoint managers to conduct the proofs.
Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb.,
1709–10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to
be given till they demand it. Seld. Jud., 124. But
they are not to be present on impeachment when
the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and
determine of their judgment. Their presence,
however, is necessary at the answer and judg-
ment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not
capital; 162. * * *.
The House has consulted its own inclination and convenience about at-
§ 617. Attendance of
tending its managers at an impeachment. It did not
the House of attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald,
Representatives. Louderback, and Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516);
and after attending at the answer of Belknap, decided
[327]
§ 618–§ 619
that it would be represented for the remainder of the trial by its managers
alone (III, 2453). At the trial of the President the House, in Committee
of the Whole, attended throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is excep-
tional. In the Peck trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and
reconsidered its decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the
Senate is deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when
the Senate votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the
trial, it may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently
attended in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).
* * * The Lords debate the judgment among

themselves. Then the vote is first
§ 618. Voting on the
articles in an
taken on the question of guilty or
impeachment trial.
not guilty; and if they convict, the

question, or particular sentence, is out of that
which seemeth to be most generally agreed on.
Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.
The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned con-
tention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of the President
the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 2439). In the Belknap
trial there was much deliberation over this subject (III, 2466). In the Chase
trial the Senate modified its former rule as to form of final question (III,
2363). The yeas and nays are taken on each article separately (III, 2098,
2339) in the form ‘‘Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not
guilty?’’ (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson
the Senate, by order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the
numerical order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441),
and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles (III,
2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to provide
the method of voting and putting the question separately and successively
on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a discussion of the
vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment of President Clinton,
see § 608a, supra.
Judgment. Judgments in Parliament, for

§ 619. Judgment in death have been strictly guided per
impeachments.
legem terrae, which they can not
alter; and not at all according to their discretion.
They can neither omit any part of the legal judg-
ment nor add to it. Their sentence must be
secundum non ultra legem. Seld. Jud., 168, 171.
[328]
§ 619
This trial, though it varies in external ceremony,

yet differs not in essentials from criminal pros-
ecutions before inferior courts. The same rules of
evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are
not framed to alter the law, but to carry it into
more effectual execution against too powerful
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be
such as is warranted by legal principles or prec-
edents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The Chan-
cellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord
High Steward formerly in cases of life and
death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the Steward is
deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613.
In misdemeanors the greatest corporal punish-
ment hath been imprisonment. Seld. Jud., 184.
The King’s assent is necessary to capital judg-
ments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in mis-
demeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.
The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits the
judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment following
conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate vote if it
contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 512; Apr. 17,
1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as disqualification) requires
a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). Under earlier practice,
after a conviction the Senate voted separately on the question of disquali-
fication (III, 2339, 2397), but no vote is required by the Senate on judgment
of removal from office following conviction, because removal follows auto-
matically from conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution
(Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of
removal from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office
without separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not con-
templated (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President
may provide only for removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug.
20, 1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding
any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828).
[329]
§ 620
Continuance. An impeachment is not discon-

§ 620. Impeachment tinued by the dissolution of Par-
not interrupted by
adjournments. liament, but may be resumed by the
new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4
Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord’s Jour., May 15,
1791; 2 Wood., 618.
In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also § 592, supra). The fol-
lowing impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the next:
(1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate on
the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate conducted
the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the impeachment of Judge
Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last day of the 72d Con-
gress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in the 73d Congress
(VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was presented in the
Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress (Aug. 3, 1988,
p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the 101st Congress
(Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President Clinton was pre-
sented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine die for the 105th
Congress (Jan. 6, 1999, p. 14), and the Senate conducted the trial in the
106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge
Porteous was authorized in the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and contin-
ued in the next Congress (Jan. 13, 2009). Although impeachment pro-
ceedings may continue from one Congress to the next, the authority of
the managers appointed by the House expires at the end of a Congress;
and the managers must be reappointed when a new Congress convenes
(Jan. 6, 1999, p. 15).
[330]
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
[331]
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WITH NOTES AND ANNOTATIONS
RULE I
THE SPEAKER
Approval of the Journal

1. The Speaker shall take the Chair on every
legislative day precisely at the hour to which the
House last adjourned and immediately call the
House to order. Having examined and approved
§ 621. Journal; the Journal of the last day’s pro-
Speaker’s approval.
ceedings, the Speaker shall an-
nounce to the House approval thereof. The
Speaker’s approval of the Journal shall be
deemed agreed to unless a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner demands a vote thereon.
If such a vote is decided in the affirmative, it
shall not be subject to a motion to reconsider. If
such a vote is decided in the negative, then one
motion that the Journal be read shall be privi-
leged, shall be decided without debate, and shall
not be subject to a motion to reconsider.
This clause was adopted in 1789, amended in 1811, 1824 (II, 1310), 1971
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, pp. 140–44, with the implementation of the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140), and 1979 (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7, 16). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Con-
gress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
[333]
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
§ 621 Rule I, clause 1
The hour of meeting is fixed by standing order, and was traditionally

set at noon (I, 104–109, 116, 117; IV, 4325); but beginning in the 95th
Congress, the House by standing order formalized the practice of varying
its convening time to accommodate committee meetings on certain days
of the week and to maximize time for floor action on other days (e.g., H.
Res. 7, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 70). The House retains the right to vary from
this schedule by use of the motion to fix the day and time to which the
House shall adjourn as provided in clause 4 of rule XVI. The House may
provide for a session of the House on a Sunday, traditionally a ‘‘dies non’’
under the precedents of the House (e.g., Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31946; Dec. 18,
1987, p. 36352; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25483). Beginning in the second session
of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed to con-
vene earlier on certain days for morning-hour debate and then recess to
the hour established for convening under a previous order (see § 951, infra).
Immediately after the Members are called to order, the prayer is offered
by the Chaplain (IV, 3056), and the Speaker declines to entertain a point
of no quorum before prayer is offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX). Before
the 96th Congress, clause 1 of rule I directed the Speaker to announce
the approval of the Journal on the appearance of a quorum after having
called the House to order. Under that form of the rule, a point of no quorum
could be made after the prayer and before the approval of the Journal
when the House convened, notwithstanding the provisions of former clause
6(e) of rule XV (now clause 7 of rule XX), allowing such points of order
in the House only when the Speaker had put the pending motion or propo-
sition to a vote (Oct. 3, 1977, p. 31987). Similarly, prior practice had per-
mitted a point of no quorum before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2733;
VI, 625) or during its reading (VI, 624). In the 96th Congress, the House
eliminated the necessity for the appearance of a quorum before the Speak-
er’s announcement of the approval of the Journal (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979,
pp. 7, 16). If a quorum fails to respond on a motion incident to the approval,
reading, or amendment of the Journal, and there is an objection to the
vote, a call of the House under clause 6 of rule XX is automatic (Feb.
2, 1977, p. 3342).
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Speaker may postpone until a later
time on the same legislative day a record vote on the Speaker’s approval
of the Journal. Where the House adjourns on consecutive days without
having approved the Journal of the previous days’ proceedings, the Speaker
puts the question de novo in chronological order as the first order of busi-
ness on the subsequent day (Nov. 3, 1987, p. 30592).
Before the 92d Congress, the reading of the Journal was mandatory and
could not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent (VI, 625; Sept.
19, 1962, p. 19941) or by motion to suspend the rules (IV, 2747–2750).
It had to be read in full when demanded by any Member (IV, 2739–2741;
VI, 627, 628; Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2152), but the demand came too late after
the Journal was approved (VI, 626). Under the rule as in effect from the
92d Congress through the 95th Congress, any Member could offer a privi-
[334]
Rule I, clause 2 § 622
leged, nondebatable motion that the Journal be read pending the Speaker’s
announcement of approval and before agreement by the House (Apr. 23,
1975, p. 11482).
The Journal of the last day of a session is not read on the first day
of the next session (IV, 2742). No business is transacted before the approval
of the Journal (or the postponement of a vote under clause 8 of rule XX
on agreeing to the Speaker’s approval), including consideration of a con-
ference report (IV, 2751–2756; VI, 629, 630, 637). However, the motion
to adjourn (IV, 2757; Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30387) and the
swearing of a Member (I, 172) could take precedence.
Once begun, the reading may not be interrupted, even by business so
highly privileged as a conference report (V, 6443; clause 7(a) of rule XXII).
However, a parliamentary inquiry (VI, 624), an arraignment of impeach-
ment (VI, 469), or a question of privilege relating to a breach of privilege
(such as an assault occurring during the reading) may interrupt its reading
or approval (II, 1630).
Under the prior rule, the Speaker’s examination and approval of the
Journal was preliminary to the reading and did not preclude subsequent
amendment by the House itself (IV, 2734–2738). If the Speaker’s approval
of the Journal is rejected, a motion to amend takes precedence of a motion
to approve (IV, 2760; VI, 633), and a Member offering an amendment is
recognized under the hour rule (Mar. 19, 1990, p. 4488); but the motion
is not admissible after the previous question is demanded on the motion
to approve (IV, 2770; VI, 633; VIII, 2684; Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23600).
Preservation of order
§ 622. Speaker 2. The Speaker shall preserve
preserves order on
floor and in galleries
order and decorum and, in case of
and lobby. disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same
to be cleared.
This clause was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1794 (II, 1343). Clerical
and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Speaker may name a Member who is disorderly, but may not, of
the Speaker’s own authority, censure or punish the Member (II, 1344, 1345;
VI, 237). In cases of extreme disorder in the Committee of the Whole the
Speaker has taken the chair and restored order without a formal rising
of the Committee (II, 1348, 1648–1653, 1657). Before the establishment
of recess authority in clause 12(b), the Speaker, as an exercise of authority
under this clause, has on initiative declared the House in recess in an
emergency (Speaker Martin, Mar. 1, 1954, p. 2424; see also Speaker Ray-
burn, Mar. 1, 1943, p. 1487 (air-raid drill)). A former Member must observe
the rules of decorum while on the floor, and the Speaker may request
[335]
the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist in maintaining such decorum (Sept. 17,

1997, pp. 19026, 19027). The Chair announced that failure to heed the
gavel constitutes an act of stark incivility (July 28, 2009, p. l).
The authority to have the galleries cleared has been exercised but rarely
(II, 1352; Speaker Albert, Jan. 18, 1972, p. 9). On one occasion, acting
on the basis of police reports and other evidence, the Speaker ordered the
galleries cleared before the House convened (May 10, 1972, p. 16576) and
then informed the House of his decision. In an early instance the Speaker
ordered the arrest of a person in the gallery; but this exercise of power
was questioned (II, 1605). In response to a disruptive demonstration in
the gallery, the Chair notes for the Record the disruptive character of the
demonstration and enlists the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the offending
parties (see, e.g., Oct. 8, 2002, p. 19543; Apr. 29, 2010, p. l). After repeated
disturbances in the gallery, the chair of the Committee of the Whole warned
occupants of the gallery of possible prosecution (under 40 U.S.C. 5104)
(Apr. 15, 2011, p. l). Occupants of the gallery are not to manifest approval
or disapproval of, or otherwise disrupt, proceedings on the floor (see, e.g.,
Speaker Foley, June 12, 1990, p. 13593) and the Speaker may quell such
demonstrations before the adoption of the rules (Speaker Gingrich, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 454).
Although Members are permitted to use exhibits such as charts during
debate (subject to clause 6 of rule XVII), the Speaker may direct the re-
moval of a chart from the well of the House that is not being utilized
during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304; Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7402). The Speaker’s
responsibility to preserve decorum requires the disallowance of exhibits
in debate that would be demeaning to the House, or to any Member of
the House, or that would be disruptive of the decorum thereof (Sept. 13,
1989, p. 20362; Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29647; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24828; Nov. 16,
1995, p. 33395; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 42). The Speaker has disallowed the use
of a person on the floor as a guest of the House as an ‘‘exhibit,’’ including
a Member’s child (see § 678, infra). The Chair also has cautioned Members
to refrain from using audio devices during debate (May 24, 2005, p. 11008).
Although a Member may enlist the assistance of a page to manage the
placement of an exhibit on an easel, it is not appropriate to refer to the
page or to use the page as though part of the exhibit (June 11, 2003, p.
14417; Speaker Hastert, June 12, 2003, p. 14576). The Chair will distin-
guish between using an exhibit in the immediate area the Member is ad-
dressing the House as a visual aid for the edification of Members and
staging an exhibition; for example, a Member having a large number of
his colleagues accompany him in the well, each carrying a part of his ex-
hibit, was held to impair the decorum of the House (June 12, 2003, p.
14627). The Speaker may inquire concerning a Member’s intentions, as
to the use of exhibits, before conferring recognition to address the House
(Mar. 21, 1984, p. 6187). In the 101st Congress both the Speaker and the
chair of the Committee of the Whole reinforced the Chair’s authority to
control the use of exhibits in debate, distinguishing between the constitu-
[336]
tional authority of the House to make its own rules and first amendment
rights of free speech, and the use of all exhibits was prohibited during
the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole (Oct. 11, 1990,
p. 28650). The Speaker may permit the display of an exhibit in the Speak-
er’s lobby during debate on a measure (May 20, 1999, p. 10280). Just as
an appeal may be entertained on a decision from the Chair that a Member
has engaged in personalities in debate (Sept. 28, 1996, pp. 25780–82; see
also clause 4 of rule XVII), so also may an appeal be entertained on a
ruling of the Chair on the propriety of an exhibit (Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33395).
At the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics), the Speaker announced that (1) all handouts distributed on or
adjacent to the floor must bear the name of a Member authorizing the
distribution; (2) the content of such handouts must comport with the stand-
ards applicable to words used in debate; (3) failure to comply with these
standards may constitute a breach of decorum and thus give rise to a ques-
tion of privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the Chamber or rooms leading
thereto from distributing handouts and from attempting to influence Mem-
bers with regard to legislation; and (5) Members should minimize the use
of handouts to enhance the quality of debate (Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26567;
Mar. 20, 1996, p. 5644; Mar. 4, 1998, p. 2523; Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
Questions having been raised concerning proper attire for Members in
the Chamber (thermostat controls having been raised to comply with a
Presidential directive conserving energy in the summer months), the
Speaker announced he considered traditional attire for Members appro-
priate, including coats and ties for male Members and appropriate attire
for female Members, but that he would recognize for a question of privileges
of the House to relax such standards. The Speaker also requested a Member
in violation of those standards to remove himself from the Chamber and
appear in appropriate attire, and refused to recognize such Member until
he did so (Speaker O’Neill, July 17, 1979, p. 19008). The House later agreed
to a resolution (presented as a question of the privileges of the House)
requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the Speaker
(July 17, 1979, p. 19072). See also § 962, infra.
Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, and in order to uphold
order and decorum in the House as required under clause 2 of rule I, the
Speaker may deny a Member recognition for a ‘‘one-minute speech’’ (Aug.
27, 1980, p. 23456). Furthermore, it is a breach of decorum for a Member
to continue to speak beyond the time for which recognized (Mar. 22, 1996,
p. 6086; May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 23949, 23950), and the
Speaker may deny further recognition to such Member (Mar. 16, 1988,
p. 4081), from which there is no appeal (see § 629, infra). Even before adop-
tion of the rules, the Speaker may maintain decorum by directing a Member
engaging in such breach of decorum to be removed from the well and by
directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to present the mace as the traditional sym-
bol of order (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 58). A Member’s comportment may constitute
a breach of decorum even though the content of that Member’s speech
[337]
§ 623–§ 624 Rule I, clause 4
is not, itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under this stand-
ard the Chair may deny further recognition to a Member engaged in unpar-
liamentary debate who ignores repeated admonitions by the Chair to pro-
ceed in order (unless the Member is permitted to proceed by order of the
House) (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535). The Chair announced that time con-
sumed while obtaining order would not be charged to the Member under
recognition (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
Control of Capitol facilities

3. Except as otherwise provided by rule or
§ 623. Speaker’s law, the Speaker shall have general
control of the Hall,
corridors, and rooms. control of the Hall of the House, the
corridors and passages in the part
of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House,
and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in
that part of the Capitol.
This clause was adopted in 1811 and amended in 1824, 1885 (II, 1354),
and 1911 (VI, 261). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
Control of the appropriated rooms in the House portion of the Capitol
is exercised by the House itself (V, 7273–7279), but repairs and alterations
have been authorized by statute (V, 7280–7281; 59 Stat. 472). On January
15, 1979, the Speaker announced his directive concerning free access by
Members in the corridors approaching the Chamber (p. 19). The Speaker
has declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request to change the
decor in the Chamber, stating that he would take the suggestion under
advisement in exercising his authority under this clause (Mar. 2, 1989,
p. 3220). The Speaker has announced that a joint Republican Conference
and Democratic Caucus meeting would be held in the Chamber following
the adjournment of the House on that day (July 27, 1998, p. 17466). The
Speaker has announced standards for use of the Chamber when the House
is not in session (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; Speaker Boehner,
Jan. 5, 2011, l).
Signature of documents
4. The Speaker shall sign all acts and joint
§ 624. Speaker’s resolutions passed by the two
signature to acts,
warrants, subpoenas, Houses and all writs, warrants, and
etc.
subpoenas of, or issued by order of,
[338]
Rule I, clause 5 § 625–§ 627
the House. The Speaker may sign enrolled bills

and joint resolutions whether or not the House
is in session.
The Speaker was given authority to sign acts, warrants, subpoenas, etc.,
in 1794 (II, 1313). The last sentence of this clause, granting the Speaker
standing authority to sign enrolled bills, even if the House is not in session,
was added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 4 and
5 occupied a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Enrolled bills are signed first by the Speaker (IV, 3429) or a Speaker
§ 625. Signing of
pro tempore under clause 8 of rule I. For precedents
enrolled bills. relevant to the signing of enrolled bills before this
clause was amended to permit the Speaker to sign at
any time, see IV, 3458, and V, 5705. Before the adoption of clause 2(d)(2)
of rule II (enabling the Clerk to examine enrolled bills), the House author-
ized the Speaker to sign an enrolled bill before the Committee on Enrolled
Bills could attest to its accuracy (IV, 3452). In cases of error the House
has permitted the Speaker’s signature to be vacated (IV, 3453, 3455–3457;
VII, 1077–1080).
Warrants, subpoenas, etc., during recesses of Congress are signed only
§ 626. Signing of
by authority specially given (III, 1753, 1763, 1806). The
warrants, subpoenas, issuing of warrants must be specially authorized by the
etc. House (I, 287) or pursuant to a standing rule (clause
6 of rule XX; § 1026, infra). Instance wherein the House
authorized the Speaker to warrant for the arrest of absentees (VI, 638).
The Speaker also signs the articles, replications, etc., in impeachments
(III, 2370, 2455; e.g., H. Res. 611, Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112); and certifies
cases of contumacious witnesses for action by the courts (III, 1691, 1769;
VI, 385; 2 U.S.C. 194). A subpoena validly issued under clause 2(m) of
rule XI need only be signed by the chair of that committee, whereas when
the House issues an order or warrant, the summons is issued under the
hand and seal of the Speaker, and it must be attested by the Clerk (III,
1668; see H. Rept. 96–1078, p. 22).
Questions of order
5. The Speaker shall decide all questions of
§ 627. Questions of order, subject to appeal by a Mem-
order.
ber, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner. On such an appeal a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner may not speak more
than once without permission of the House.
[339]
This rule was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1811. Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 4 and 5 occupied a single
clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Speaker may require that a question of order be presented in writing
§ 628. Practice
(V, 6865). When enough of a proposition has been read
governing the Speaker to show that it is out of order, the question of order
in deciding points of may be raised without waiting for the reading to be
order. completed (V, 6886, 6887; VIII, 2912, 3378, 3437; July
9, 2009, p. l), though the Chair may decline to rule
until the entire proposition has been read (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41716–18).
For example, the Chair declined to entertain a point of order that a motion
to recommit was not germane before any nongermane portion of the motion
had been read (May 9, 2003, p. 11110); and a motion to recommit with
instructions was ruled out of order before the entire motion had been read
as a matter of form where a special order of business precluded instructions
(May 6, 2004, pp. 8590, 8591). A point of order may be withdrawn as a
matter of right before action thereon (e.g., June 24, 2008, p. l). Present
insistence on a point of order takes precedence over reservation (Nov. 19,
2009, p. l). A timely reservation of a point of order by one Member inures
to the benefit of any other Member who desires to raise a point of order
(V, 6906; July 18, 1990, p. 17930). Questions arising during a division
are decided peremptorily (V, 5926), and when they arise out of any other
question must be decided before that question (V, 6864). In rare instances
the Speaker has declined to rule until taking time for examination of the
question (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475; Mar. 24,
2010, p. l).
Debate on a point of order, being for the Chair’s information, is within
the Chair’s discretion (see, e.g., V, 6919, 6920; VIII, 3446–3448; Deschler-
Brown, ch. 29, § 67.3; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22901;
Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420) and is solely to edify the judgment of the Chair,
who may decline to hear more when prepared to rule (Mar. 3, 2011, p.
l). Debate is confined to the question of order and may not extend to
the merits of the proposition against which it lies or to parliamentarily
similar propositions permitted to remain in the pending bill by waivers
of points of order (e.g., July 18, 1995, p. 19335; June 22, 2000, p. 12078).
Members must address the Chair and cannot engage in colloquies on the
point of order (e.g., Sept. 18, 1986, p. 24083; May 19, 2005, p. 10337),
nor can they offer pro forma amendments to debate the point of order
(July 21, 1998, p. 16369; June 27, 2007, pp. 17715, 17716) or the underlying
proposition (Feb. 16, 2011, p. l). To ensure that the arguments recorded
on a question of order are those actually heard by the Chair before ruling,
the Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to permit a Mem-
ber to revise and extend remarks on a point of order (Sept. 22, 1976, p.
31873; May 15, 1997, p. 8493, 8494; July 24, 1998, p. 17278; June 12,
2008, p. l). However, the Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent
has allowed a Member to revise and extend his remarks to follow the ruling
[340]
on a point of order (July 13, 2000, p. 14095). A Member may raise multiple
points of order simultaneously, and the Chair may hear argument and
rule on each question individually (Mar. 28, 1996, pp. 6931, 6933); or the
Chair may choose to rule on only one of the points of order raised (July
24, 1998, p. 17278). If a Member incorrectly demands the ‘‘regular order,’’
rather than making a point of order to assert that remarks are not confined
to the question under debate, the Chair may treat the demand as a point
of order and rule thereon (May 1, 1996, p. 9889).
The Chair is constrained to give precedent its proper influence (II, 1317;
VI, 248). Although the Chair will normally not disregard a decision of the
Chair previously made on the same facts (IV, 4045), such precedents may
be examined and reversed if shown to be erroneous (IV, 4637; VI, 639;
VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435; Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178). The authoritative
source for proper interpretations of the rules are statements made directly
from the Chair and not comments made by the Speaker in other contexts
(May 25, 1995, p. 14437; Sept. 19, 1995, p. 25454). Preserving the authority
and binding force of parliamentary law is as much the duty of each Member
of the House as it is the duty of the Chair (VII, 1479). The Speaker’s deci-
sions are recorded in the Journal (IV, 2840, 2841), but responses to par-
liamentary inquiries are not so recorded (IV, 2842).
The Chair does not decide on the legislative or legal effect of propositions
(II, 1274, 1323, 1324; VI, 254; VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841; Mar. 16, 1983,
p. 5669; May 13, 1998, p. 9129), on the consistency of proposed action
with other acts of the House (II, 1327–1336; VII, 2112, 2136; VIII, 3237,
3458), whether Members have abused leave to print (V, 6998–7000; VIII,
3475), or on the propriety or expediency of a proposed course of action
(II, 1275, 1325, 1326, 1337; IV, 3091–3093, 3127).
Also, the Chair does not rule on: (1) the constitutional power of the House
(II, 1490; IV, 3507), such as the constitutional authority of the House to
propose a rule of the House, such matter appropriately being decided by
way of the question of consideration or disposition of the proposal (Jan.
4, 2005, pp. 44 0946); (2) the constitutional competency of proposed legisla-
tion (II, 1255, 1318–1322, VI, 250, 251; VIII, 2225, 3031, 3427; July 21,
1947, pp. 9522, 9551; May 13, 1948, p. 5817; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424);
(3) the constitutional rights of Members (VIII, 3071).
The Chair is not required to decide a question not directly presented
by the proceedings (II, 1314). Furthermore, it is not the duty of the Chair
to decide a hypothetical question (VI, 249, 253; Nov. 20, 1989, p. 30225),
including: (1) the germaneness of an amendment not yet offered (Dec. 12,
1985, p. 36167; May 5, 1988, p. 9936; May 18, 1988, p. 11404; Mar. 22,
2000, p. 3283) or previously offered and entertained without a point of
order (June 6, 1990, p. 13194); (2) the admissibility under existing Budget
Act allocations of an amendment not yet offered, particularly if the Chair’s
response might depend on the disposition of a prior amendment on which
proceedings had been postponed (June 27, 1994, p. 14593; June 12, 2000,
p. 10377); (3) the admissibility under clause 2 of rule XXI of an amendment
[341]
already pending (July 29, 1998, p. 17963), against which all points of order
had been waived (July 27, 1995, p. 20800); (4) the admissibility of an
amendment at a future date, pending a ruling of the Chair on its immediate
admissibility (June 25, 1997, p. 12488). The Chair will not declare judg-
ment on the propriety of words taken down before they are read to the
House (Sept. 21, 2001, p. 17613). The Chair does not take cognizance of
complaints relating to pairs (VIII, 3087). The Chair passes on the validity
of conference reports (V, 6409, 6410, 6414–6416; VIII, 3256, 3264), but
not on the sufficiency of the accompanying statements as distinguished
from the form (V, 6511–6513), or on the question of whether a conference
report violates instructions of the House (V, 6395; VIII, 3246). As to reports
of committees, the Chair does not decide as to their sufficiency (II, 1339;
IV, 4653) or whether the committee has followed instructions (II, 1338;
IV, 4404, 4689); or on matters arising in the Committee of the Whole (V,
6927, 6928, 6932–6937; Dec. 12, 1985, p. 36173); but has decided as to
the validity of the authorization of a report (IV, 4592, 4593) and has indi-
cated that a point of order could be raised at a proper time where the
content of a filed report varies from that approved by the committee (May
16, 1989, p. 9356). An objection to the use of an exhibit under clause 6
of rule XVII (formerly rule XXX) is not a point of order on which the Chair
must rule (July 31, 1996, pp. 20694, 20700). Before the rule was rewritten
in the 107th Congress, it required that the Chair put the question whether
the exhibit may be used. It now merely permits the Chair to put such
question (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A complaint that certain
remarks that might be uttered in debate would improperly disclose execu-
tive-session material of a committee is not cognizable as a point of order
in the House if the Chair is not aware of the executive-session status of
the information (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24648). The assertion that a Member
may be inconvenienced by the legislative schedule announced by the Lead-
ership does not give rise to a point of order that the Member cannot attend
both to House and constituent duties at the same time (Nov. 10, 1999,
p. 29537).
Under long practice, precedents and applicable guidelines allowed the
Chair to refine a ruling on a point of order in the Record in order to clarify
the ruling without changing its substance, including one sustained by the
House on appeal (Feb. 19, 1992, p. 2461; see H. Res. 230, 99th Cong.,
July 31, 1985, p. 21783; and H. Rept. 99–228 (in accordance with existing
accepted practices, the Chair may make such technical or parliamentary
corrections or insertions in transcript as may be necessary to conform to
rule, custom, or precedent); see also H. Res. 330, 101st Cong., Feb. 7, 1990,
p. 1515, and report of House Administration task force on Record inserted
by Speaker Foley, Oct. 27, 1990, p. 37124). The Chair ruled that the re-
quirement of former clause 9 of rule XIV (now clause 8 of rule XVII) that
the Record be a substantially verbatim account of remarks made during
House proceedings, extended to statements and rulings of the Chair
(Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866).
[342]
Rule I, clause 5 § 628a
In interpreting the language of a special order adopted by the House,

the Chair will not look behind the unambiguous language of the resolution
itself (June 18, 1986, p. 14267). Questions concerning informal guidelines
of the Committee on Rules for advance submission of amendments for pos-
sible inclusion under a ‘‘modified closed’’ rule may not be raised under
the guise of parliamentary inquiry (May 5, 1988, p. 9938). Because the
Chair refrains from issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical or antici-
patory questions of order, the Chair will not interpret a special order before
it is adopted by the House (Oct. 14, 1986, p. 30862; July 27, 1993, p. 17116;
July 27, 1995, p. 20741; Jan. 5, 1996, p. 366; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 7064; June
28, 2000, p. 12649; Mar. 8, 2001, p. 3229; May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Oct.
17, 2003, pp. 25031, 25032). Thus, the Chair has declined to identify provi-
sions in a bill as ostensible objects of a waiver in the pending resolution
providing a special order for that bill (Oct. 19, 1995, pp. 28503, 28504;
Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 7064); to determine whether
a bill, for which the pending resolution provides a special order waiving
any requirement for a three-fifths vote on passage, actually ‘‘carries’’ a
Federal income tax rate increase under clause 5 of rule XXI (Oct. 26, 1995,
p. 29477); or to opine whether an amendment might be in order in the
Committee of the Whole (May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Oct. 17, 2003, pp. 25031,
25032), including one required to be printed in the Congressional Record
where the Record had not yet been printed (Jan. 26, 2011, l). The Chair
will not compare the text made in order by a pending special order as
original text for further amendment with the text reported by the com-
mittee of jurisdiction (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28503). Similarly, the Chair will
not issue an advisory opinion on how debate on a pending resolution will
bear on the Chair’s ultimate interpretation of the resolution as an order
of the House (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19343).
The Speaker rarely submits a question directly to the House for its deci-
sion (IV, 3173, 3282, 4930; V, 5014, 5323, 6701; VI, 49; Speaker Longworth,
Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7148; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107), and rarely takes initiative
to raise and submit a question (II, 1277, 1315, 1316; VIII, 3405). Even
as to questions of privilege the Speaker usually, in later practice, makes
a preliminary decision instead of submitting the question directly to the
House (III, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2654, 2678; Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987,
p. 5404).
Recognition for parliamentary inquiry lies in the discretion of the Chair
§ 628a. Practice
(VI, 541; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8273; Nov. 7, 2009, p. l).
governing the Speaker As such, the Chair may recognize for a demand for the
in entertaining yeas and nays rather than entertain a parliamentary
parliamentary inquiry (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23233). The Speaker may rec-
inquiries.
ognize and respond to a parliamentary inquiry al-
though the previous question may have been demanded (Mar. 27, 1926,
p. 6469). Although the Chair has discretion to recognize Members for par-
liamentary inquiries when no other Member is occupying the floor for de-
bate, a parliamentary inquiry may not be raised unless the Member having
[343]
§ 628a Rule I, clause 5
the floor yields for that purpose (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27465; July 13, 1989,
p. 14633) and the yielding Member is charged time consumed thereby (Nov.
7, 2009, p. l). A Member under recognition for a parliamentary inquiry
may not yield to another Member (Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510).
The Speaker may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement, espe-
cially if not related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992,
p. 8273). The Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries relating in a prac-
tical sense to the pending proceedings but does not respond to requests
to place them in historical context (June 25, 1992, p. 16174; Jan. 3, 1996,
pp. 36–41; Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24653; Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21557, 21558). The
Chair announced parameters for a proper parliamentary inquiry (Mar. 21,
2010, p l) and announced his intention to refuse further recognition on
a particular line of improper inquiry (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
The Speaker may entertain a parliamentary inquiry during a record
vote if it relates to the vote (Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22017; Oct. 6, 1999, p. 24199;
Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21557, 21558; Mar. 30, 2004, pp. 5577, 5578). However,
the Speaker will not (1) respond to a request to place the length of a record
vote in historical context (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21558), (2) explain the exercise
of discretion to hold a vote open beyond the minimum time prescribed
under clause 2 of rule XX (Mar. 30, 2004, pp. 5577, 5578; Mar. 21, 2010,
p. l), or (3) state the vote tally as it stood upon expiration of the minimum
time (May 8, 2008, p. l).
A proper parliamentary inquiry relates to an interpretation of a House
rule, not of a statute or of the Constitution (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424; July
18, 2006, p. 14784). The Chair will not respond to a parliamentary inquiry
to: (1) judge the propriety of words spoken in debate pending a demand
that those words be taken down as unparliamentary (June 8, 1995, p.
15267; July 16, 2009, p. l; Feb. 11, 2011, p. l); (2) judge the propriety
of words uttered earlier in debate (June 15, 2000, p. 11106; July 18, 2007,
p. 19560); (3) judge the veracity of remarks in debate (June 5, 1996, p.
13195; June 17, 2004, p. 12886); (4) decide whether certain remarks in
debate were confined to the question under consideration (as required by
clause 1 of rule XVII) (May 27, 2010, p. l); (5) reexamine and explain
the validity of a prior ruling (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477; June 8, 2005, pp.
11945, 11946; May 15, 2008, p. l); (6) anticipate the precedential effect
of a ruling (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424); (7) judge the accuracy of the content
of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p. 32142); (8) indicate which side of the aisle
has failed under the Speaker’s guidelines to clear a unanimous-consent
request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2260; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510); (9) respond to
political commentary (June 25, 1998, p. 13978; Apr. 4, 2001, p. 5417; Oct.
8, 2004, p. 22634); (10) comment on the effect of time consumed on a pend-
ing amendment as a tactic to prevent the offering of other amendments
under a special order adopted by the House (May 10, 2000, p. 7508); (11)
anticipate whether bill language would trigger certain executive actions;
(12) interpret a pending proposition (Sept. 20, 1989, p. 20969; May 13,
1998, p. 9129; July 9, 2009, p. l; Mar. 20, 2010, p. l) (although the
[344]
Chair may explain the application of the procedural status quo to a pending
proposal to change that status quo by way of an amendment to the standing
rules (Feb. 1, 2006, p. 541)); (13) judge the appropriateness of Senate action
(Apr. 10, 2003, p. 9279); (14) characterize proceedings of a committee (June
15, 2006, p. 11409) or speculate as to the operation of committee rules
(July 27, 2007, p. 21124; Oct. 10, 2007, p. 26993), although the Chair has
confirmed that the adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions
to report ‘‘promptly’’ does not necessarily suspend the operation of any
rule of the House (Feb. 27, 2008, p. l) or of a committee (Nov. 15, 2007,
p. l); (15) speculate whether Members-elect are entitled to compensation
prior to taking the oath of office (Jan. 7, 2011, p. l).
The Chair may clarify a prior response to a parliamentary inquiry (July
31, 1996, p. 20700; Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
The right of appeal insures the House against the arbitrary control of
§ 629. Practice,
the Speaker and cannot be taken away from the House
governing appeals. (V, 6002). Although a decision of the Chair on a point
of order is subject to appeal on demand of any Member,
a Member cannot secure a recorded vote on a point of order absent an
appeal and the Chair’s putting the question thereon (June 20, 1996, p.
14847).
An appeal may not be entertained from the following: (1) response to
a parliamentary inquiry (V, 6955; VIII, 3457); (2) decision on recognition
(II, 1425–1428; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; July 23, 1993, p. 16820;
Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10298; June 17, 1999, p. 13465; June 22, 2006, p. 12299;
July 9, 2009, p. l); (3) decision on dilatoriness of motions (V, 5731); (4)
question on which an appeal has just been decided (IV, 3036; V, 6877);
(5) count of the number rising to demand tellers (VIII, 3105), to demand
a recorded vote (June 24, 1976, p. 20390; June 14, 2000, p. 10841) or the
yeas and nays (Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28950), or to object to a request under
the former rule that required a committee have permission to sit during
floor proceedings under the five-minute rule (Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28984);
(6) count of a quorum (July 24, 1974, p. 25012); (7) call of a voice vote
(Aug. 10, 1994, p. 20766); (8) refusal to recapitulate a vote (VIII, 3128);
(9) refusal under clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6(e) of rule XV)
to entertain a point of no quorum when a pending question has not been
put to a vote (Sept. 16, 1977, p. 29594); (10) determination that a Member’s
time in debate has expired (Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6086); (11) announcement
of the whole number of the House upon the death, resignation, expulsion,
disqualification, or removal of a Member (clause 5(d) of rule XX); (12) an-
nouncement of the content of a catastrophic quorum failure report under
clause 5(c) of rule XX (§ 1024a, infra). Although an announcement by the
Chair that an objection to a unanimous-consent request has been heard
is not subject to appeal, the Chair’s ruling on the timeliness of the objection
is subject to appeal (Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6393, 6394). Although the timeliness
of the Chair’s recognition of a Member to offer a motion to table an appeal
is not subject to appeal (June 22, 2006, p. 12299), the Chair’s ruling on
[345]
timeliness of a Member’s demand that words be taken down is subject

to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899).
An appeal also may not be entertained: (1) while another is pending
(V, 6939–6941); (2) between the motion to adjourn and vote thereon (V,
5361); (3) during a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6051); (4) when dilatory
(V, 5715–5722; VIII, 2822).
An appeal may be debated (VII, 1608; VIII, 2347, 2375, 3453–3455; June
24, 2003, pp. 15854–56); unless laid on the table (V, 5301; Mar. 16, 1988,
p. 4086), or the previous question is ordered (V, 5448, 5449). An appeal
from a decision relating to the priority of business (V, 6952), or relevancy
of debate (V, 5056–5063) is not debatable. Debate in the House is under
the hour rule (V, 4978), but may be closed at any time by the adoption
of a motion for the previous question (V, 6947); or to lay on the table
(VIII, 3453). Debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole is under
the five-minute rule (VII, 1608; VIII, 2347, 2556a, 3454, 3455; June 24,
2003, pp. 15854–56), and may be closed by motion to close debate or to
rise and report (V, 6947, 6950; VIII, 3453). An appeal of a ruling of the
Chair may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of
right (June 8, 2000, p. 9954). An appeal may be withdrawn at any time
before action by the House thereon (as where the Chair has not even stated
the question on appeal) (May 6, 2004, pp. 8590, 8591).
The House has postponed, along with the underlying matter, an appeal
from a decision of the Chair thereon (VIII, 2613). The Speaker may vote
to sustain the Speaker’s own decision (IV, 4569; V, 5686, 6956, 6957).
Form of a question
6. The Speaker shall rise to put a question but
§ 630. Putting of the may state it sitting. The Speaker
question by the
Speaker. shall put a question in this form:
‘‘Those in favor (of the question),
say ‘Aye.’ ’’; and after the affirmative voice is ex-
pressed, ‘‘Those opposed, say ‘No.’ ’’. After a vote
by voice under this clause, the Speaker may use
such voting procedures as may be invoked under
rule XX.
This clause was adopted in 1789 (II, 1311). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause (formerly clause 5) consisted
of this clause and current clause 1(a), clause 1(b), and clause 2(a) of rule
XX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The motion as stated by the Chair in putting the question and not as
stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the proposition voted on
(VI, 247). Under this paragraph the Speaker must put the pending question
[346]
Rule I, clause 8 § 631–§ 632
to a voice vote before entertaining a demand for a recorded vote or the

yeas and nays (Speaker Foley, Mar. 9, 1992, p. 4698). It is not in order
for a Member having the floor in debate to conduct a ‘‘straw vote’’ or other-
wise ask for a show of support for a proposition (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33973).
Discretion to vote
7. The Speaker is not required to vote in ordi-
§ 631. The Speaker’s nary legislative proceedings, except
vote. Tie vote.
when such vote would be decisive or
when the House is engaged in voting by ballot.
This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1850 (V, 5964) and
1911. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, clause 7 (formerly clause 6) consisted of this clause
and current clause 1(c) of rule XX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Although the amendment of 1850 granted the Speaker the same right
to vote as other Members (V, 5966, 5967), it has historically rarely been
exercised (V, 5964, footnote). The Speaker’s name is not on the roll from
which the yeas and nays are called (V, 5970), is called only on the Speaker’s
request (V, 5965), and is then called at the end of the roll by name (V,
5965; VIII, 3075). During an electronic vote, the Speaker directs the Clerk
to record the Speaker’s vote and verifies that instruction by submitting
a vote card (Oct. 17, 1990, p. 30229). The Speaker may vote to make a
tie and so decide a question in the negative, or may vote to break a tie
and so decide a question in the affirmative (VIII, 3100; Aug. 14, 1957,
p. 14783). The Speaker never has two votes on the same question; that
is, having voted as a Member, the Speaker may not vote again should
the result be a tie (V, 5964). The duty of giving a decisive vote may be
exercised after the intervention of other business, or after the announce-
ment of the result or on another day, if a correction of the roll shows a
condition wherein the Speaker’s vote would be decisive (V, 5969, 6061–
6063; VIII, 3075). In one instance the Speaker asserted a right to withdraw
a vote where a correction indicated that it was unnecessary (V, 5971).
Before the vote by tellers was repealed (§§ 1012, 1013, infra), the chair
of the Committee of the Whole could be counted on a vote by tellers without
passing through the tellers (V, 5996, 5997; VIII, 3100, 3101).
Speaker pro tempore

8. (a) The Speaker may appoint a Member to
§ 632. Speaker pro perform the duties of the Chair. Ex-
tempore.
cept as specified in paragraph (b),
[347]
such an appointment may not extend beyond

three legislative days.
(b)(1) In the case of illness, the Speaker may
appoint a Member to perform the duties of the
Chair for a period not exceeding 10 days, subject
to the approval of the House. If the Speaker is
absent and has omitted to make such an ap-
pointment, then the House shall elect a Speaker
pro tempore to act during the absence of the
Speaker.
(2) With the approval of the House, the Speak-
er may appoint a Member to act as Speaker pro
tempore only to sign enrolled bills and joint res-
olutions for a specified period of time.
(3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of
Speaker, the next Member on the list described
in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro tem-
pore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker
pro tempore. Pending such election the Member
acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise
such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may
be necessary and appropriate to that end.
(B) As soon as practicable after the election of
the Speaker and whenever appropriate there-
after, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a
list of Members in the order in which each shall
act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision
(A).
(C) For purposes of subdivision (A), a vacancy
in the Office of Speaker may exist by reason of
the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge
the duties of the office.
[348]
Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1811 and limited to three legislative days
in 1920 (VI, 263). Paragraph (b)(1) was adopted in 1876 (II, 1377). Para-
graph (b)(2) was adopted in the 99th Congress (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985,
p. 393). Paragraph (b)(3) was adopted in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(a),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Gender-based references were eliminated
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clause 8 (formerly
clause 7) and clause 9 occupied a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). The Speaker delivers to the Clerk the list required under paragraph
(b)(3)(B) and announces such delivery to the House (e.g., Mar. 13, 2003,
p. 6118; Jan. 20, 2005, p. 266).
The right of the House to elect a Speaker pro tempore in the absence
§ 634. Election, oath,
of the Speaker was exercised before the rule was adopt-
and designation of ed (II, 1405), although the House sometimes preferred
Speaker pro tempore. to adjourn (I, 179). An elected Speaker pro tempore in
the earlier practice was not sworn (I, 229; II, 1386);
but the Senate and sometimes the President were notified of such election
(II, 1386–1389, 1405–1412; VI, 275). On August 31, 1961 (p. 17765), the
House adopted House Resolution 445, electing Hon. John W. McCormack
as Speaker pro tempore in the absence and terminal illness of Speaker
Rayburn. The resolution provided that the Clerk notify the President and
the Senate. The chair of the Democratic Caucus then administered the
oath. The Speaker has appointed a Speaker pro tempore to perform the
duties of the Chair for a fourth consecutive day on account of illness (Speak-
er Hastert, Feb. 26, 2001, p. 2192). Elected Speakers pro tempore have
signed enrolled bills, appointed select committees, administered the oath
of office to a Member-elect (Mar. 17, 1998, p. 3836), etc., functions not
exercised by a Speaker pro tempore designated under paragraph (a) of
this clause (II, 1399, 1400, 1404; VI, 274, 277; Sept. 21, 1961, p. 20572;
June 21, 1984, p. 17708). The House may agree by unanimous consent
to the Speaker’s appointment under this clause of Members in the alter-
native to act as Speakers pro tempore to sign enrollments through a date
certain (e.g., Aug. 6, 1998, p. 19128) or for an entire Congress (e.g., Jan.
6, 2009, p. l).
A call of the House may take place with a Speaker pro tempore in the
chair (IV, 2989), and the Speaker pro tempore may issue a warrant for
the arrest of absent Members under a call of the House (VI, 688). When
the Speaker is not present at the opening of a session, including morning-
hour debate, the Speaker designates a Speaker pro tempore in writing
(II, 1378, 1401); but does not usually announce the Members called to
the chair temporarily during the day’s sitting (II, 1379, 1400). The presence
of the Speaker either at the opening of morning-hour debate or at the
opening of the regular session on a day satisfies the requirement that the
Speaker be present to convene the House at least every fourth day. A
Speaker pro tempore elected under clause 8 of rule I may in turn designate
another Member to act as Speaker pro tempore on a day certain (II, 1384;
[349]
§ 635–§ 636 Rule I, clause 10
VI, 275; Feb. 23, 1996, p. 2807). Members of the minority have been called
to the chair on occasions of ceremony (II, 1383; VI, 270; Jan. 31, 1951,
p. 779), but rarely otherwise (II, 1382, 1390; III, 2596; VI, 264).
Other responsibilities
9. The Speaker, in consultation with the Mi-
§ 635. Drug testing in nority Leader, shall develop
the House.
through an appropriate entity of
the House a system for drug testing in the
House. The system may provide for the testing
of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House, and otherwise
shall be comparable in scope to the system for
drug testing in the executive branch pursuant to
Executive Order 12564 (Sept. 15, 1986). The ex-
penses of the system may be paid from applica-
ble accounts of the House for official expenses.
This clause was added in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes to this clause were effected when
1999, p. 47). This clause was redesignated from clause 13 to clause 9 in
the 108th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
Clause 9 formerly was occupied by a prohibition against the Speaker
serving for more than four consecutive Congresses,
§ 635a. Former term
limit. which was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 103(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462) and repealed in the
108th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the former term-limit rule and
current clause 8 occupied a single clause (formerly clause 7) (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Designation of travel
10. The Speaker may designate a Member,
§ 636. Travel authority. Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House to
travel on the business of the House within or
without the United States, whether the House is
meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned. Ex-
[350]
penses for such travel may be paid from applica-

ble accounts of the House described in clause
1(k)(1) of rule X on vouchers approved and
signed solely by the Speaker.
This clause was adopted in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975,
p. 20). In the 105th Congress this clause was amended to update archaic
references to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). In
the 106th, 109th, and 112th Congresses, clerical corrections were effected
with respect to the ‘‘applicable accounts of the House’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this clause and the provision now found in clause 10 of
rule XXIV together occupied former clause 8 of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). See also §§ 769, 770, infra, for discussion of the Speaker’s
authority under section 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22
U.S.C. 1754) to authorize use of counterpart funds for Members and em-
ployees for foreign travel, except where authorized by the chair of the com-
mittee for members and employees thereof.
Committee appointment
11. The Speaker shall appoint all select, joint,
§ 637. Select and and conference committees ordered
conference
committees. by the House. At any time after an
original appointment, the Speaker
may remove Members, Delegates, or the Resi-
dent Commissioner from, or appoint additional
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commis-
sioner to, a select or conference committee. In
appointing Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner to conference committees, the
Speaker shall appoint no less than a majority
who generally supported the House position as
determined by the Speaker, shall name those
who are primarily responsible for the legislation,
and shall, to the fullest extent feasible, include
the principal proponents of the major provisions
[351]
of the bill or resolution passed or adopted by the

House.
The provision of this clause relating to select committees was adopted
in 1880, and the provision relating to conference committees was first
adopted in 1890, although the practice of leaving the appointment of con-
ference committees to the Speaker had existed from the earliest years of
the House’s history (IV, 4470; VIII, 2192). The provision authorizing the
Speaker to add or remove select committee members or conferees after
the initial appointment was added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49). The provision requiring the Speaker to appoint a majority
of Members who generally supported the House position became effective
on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The
provision requiring the Speaker to appoint Members primarily responsible
for the legislation was added in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977,
pp. 53–70). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 6(f) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Before 1880 the House could take from the Speaker the appointment
of a select committee (IV, 4448, 4470; VIII, 2192) and on several occasions
did so (IV, 4471–4476). In the earlier practice of the House, the Member
moving a select committee was appointed its chair (II, 1275; III, 2342;
IV, 4514–4516). However, in modern practice, except for matters of cere-
mony, the inconvenience and even impropriety of the usage has caused
it often to be disregarded (IV, 4517–4523, 4671). The Speaker has removed
Members from a select committee (e.g., Sept. 8, 2004, pp. 17754, 17755).
It is within the discretion of the Chair whom to appoint as conferees
(June 24, 1932, p. 13876; July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and such discretion is
not subject to challenge on a point of order even though clause 11 requires
the Speaker to appoint as conferees Members who are primarily respon-
sible for the legislation (Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 12, 1977, p. 33434). A motion
to instruct the Speaker as to the number and composition of a conference
committee on the part of the House is not in order (VIII, 2193, 3221),
and a motion to instruct conferees does not necessarily form the basis for
the Speaker’s determination under this clause as to which Members sup-
port the legislation (May 9, 1990, p. 9830).
The Speaker may appoint conferees from committees: (1) that have not
reported a measure; (2) that have jurisdiction over provisions of a non-
germane Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill origi-
nally narrower in scope (Speaker O’Neill, Nov. 28, 1979, p. 33904); (3)
that have jurisdiction over provisions of an original Senate bill where the
House amendment was narrower in scope (Speaker O’Neill, July 28, 1980,
p. 19875; July 11, 1985, p. 18545). The Speaker may also appoint one
who, although not a member of the committee of jurisdiction, is a principal
proponent of the measure (Speaker Gingrich, Feb. 1, 1995, p. 3258) or
a principal proponent of an adopted floor amendment (June 21, 1977, p.
[352]
20132). The Speaker has appointed as sole conferees on a nongermane

portion of a Senate bill or amendment only members from the committee
having jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof (Speaker O’Neill, Aug.
27, 1980, p. 23548; July 24, 1986, p. 17644), and also members from such
committees as additional rather than exclusive conferees on other non-
germane portions of the Senate bill (July 24, 1986, p. 17644). Where a
comprehensive matter is committed to conference, the Speaker may ap-
point separate groups of conferees from several committees for concurrent
or exclusive consideration of provisions within their respective jurisdictions
(Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1522; May 9, 1990, p. 9830). Pursuant to this clause the
Speaker may by the terms of the appointment empower a group of exclusive
conferees to report in total disagreement (June 10, 1988, p. 14077; Sept.
20, 1989, p. 20955). Pursuant to this clause the Speaker may modify an
appointment by removal (e.g., Mar. 10, 1998, p. 3049), addition (e.g., Nov.
14, 2005, p. 25816), or substitution of one conferee for another (Dec. 16,
2005, p. 29212; Oct. 6, 2009, p. l), or by expansion of the specification
of provisions for which a conferee is appointed (Oct. 3, 2002, p. 19011;
Nov. 14, 2005, p. 25816). In the 102d Congress the Speaker reiterated
the announced policy of simplifying conference appointments by noting
on the occasion of a relatively complex appointment that, inasmuch as
conference committees are select committees that dissolve when their re-
port is acted upon, conference appointments should not be construed as
jurisdictional precedent (Speaker Foley, June 3, 1992, p. 13288). The
Speaker may fill a vacancy on a conference committee by appointment
but may not accept a resignation from a conference committee (as con-
trasted with the authority to remove) absent an order of the House (Nov.
4, 1987, p. 30808).
For a further discussion of the Speaker’s authority to appoint conferees,
see § 536, supra.
Recess and Convening Authorities

12. (a) To suspend the business of the House
§ 638. Short recess for a short time when no question is
authority.
pending before the House, the
Speaker may declare a recess subject to the call
of the Chair.
This paragraph was added as clause 12 of rule I in the 103d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). It was redesignated as paragraph (a) in
the 108th Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Having post-
poned proceedings on a pending question (Apr. 30, 1998, p. 7381) or having
withdrawn recognition for a special-order speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p. l), the
Speaker may declare a recess for a short time under this paragraph (there
being no question then pending before the House). A Member’s mere revela-
tion that the Member seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not suffice
[353]
to make that motion ‘‘pending,’’ and thus the Chair remains able to declare
a short recess under this paragraph (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25,
2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. l).
(b)(1) To suspend the business of the House

when notified of an imminent
§ 639. Emergency
recess and
reconvening threat to its safety, the Speaker
authority.
may declare an emergency recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
(2) To suspend the business of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union
when notified of an imminent threat to its safe-
ty, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole may
declare an emergency recess subject to the call
of the Chair.
(c) During any recess or adjournment of not
more than three days, if the Speaker is notified
by the Sergeant-at-Arms of an imminent impair-
ment of the place of reconvening at the time pre-
viously appointed, then the Speaker may, in con-
sultation with the Minority Leader—
(1) postpone the time for reconvening within
the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the
Constitution and notify Members accordingly;
or
(2) reconvene the House before the time pre-
viously appointed solely to declare the House
in recess within the limits of clause 4, section
5, article I of the Constitution and notify
Members accordingly.
(d) The Speaker may convene the House in a
place at the seat of government other than the
Hall of the House whenever, in the opinion of
the Speaker, the public interest shall warrant it.
[354]
Rule II, clause 1 § 640
Paragraphs (b)–(d) were added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7) and the application of paragraph (b) to the Committee
of the Whole was clarified in the 110th Congress (sec. 505(a), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
l). For similar authority in the Senate, see Senate Resolution 296 (108th
Cong., Feb. 3, 2004, p. 731). An emergency recess under paragraph (b)
was declared by the Speaker pro tempore on May 11, 2005 (p. 9163) and
by the chair of the Committee of the Whole on June 29, 2005 (p. 14835).
For a drill, see March 6, 2003 (p. 5355). For the Speaker’s inherent author-
ity to declare a recess under clause 2 of rule I, see § 622, supra. The Speaker
has changed the convening time under paragraph (c) upon notification by
the Sergeant-at-Arms of an imminent impairment to reconvening (Dec.
19, 2009, p. l).
RULE II
OTHER OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS
Elections
1. There shall be elected at the commence-
§ 640. Election, oath, ment of each Congress, to continue
and removal of
officers. in office until their successors are
chosen and qualified, a Clerk, a
Sergeant-at-Arms, a Chief Administrative Offi-
cer, and a Chaplain. Each of these officers shall
take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States, and for the true and faithful ex-
ercise of the duties of the office to the best of the
knowledge and ability of the officer, and to keep
the secrets of the House. Each of these officers
shall appoint all of the employees of the depart-
ment concerned provided for by law. The Clerk,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Of-
ficer may be removed by the House or by the
Speaker.
When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated former rules II
through VII, former clauses 10 and 11 of rule I, former clause 6 of rule
XIII, and former clause 5 of rule XVI under rule II (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
[355]
§ 640 Rule II, clause 1
1999, p. 47). A rudimentary form of this clause was adopted in 1789, and
was amended several times before 1880, when it assumed the form it re-
tained for more than a century (I, 187). During the 102d Congress, the
House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 amended the clause to
abolish the Office of the Postmaster (see § 668, infra) and to empower the
Speaker to remove certain elected officers (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p.
9039). The 104th Congress made conforming changes to the clause to reflect
the abolishment of the Office of the Doorkeeper and the establishment
of an elected Chief Administrative Officer (sec. 201(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 463). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). For a discussion of the former Office of
the Doorkeeper, see § 663a, infra; and for a discussion of the evolution
of the Chief Administrative Officer (an elected officer) from the former
Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services (an officer appointed
jointly by the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders under clause
1 of rule VI of the 103d Congress), see § 664, infra.
The House having discarded a theory that the rules might be imposed
by one House on its successor (V, 6743–6745), it follows that this clause
is not operative at the organization before the rules are adopted. Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the House was re-
quired under former rule II to elect its Speaker and other officers by a
viva voce vote following nominations (I, 204, 208). However, the officers
mentioned in the rule, other than Speaker, were, even then, usually chosen
by resolution, which is not a viva voce election (I, 193, 194). A majority
vote is required for the election of officers of both Houses of Congress (VI,
23). The oath is administered by the Speaker to the officers (I, 81; § 198,
supra). The requirement that the officers be sworn to keep the secrets
of the House had become obsolete (I, 187), but the 104th Congress adopted
a requirement that Members, officers, and employees subscribe an oath
of secrecy regarding classified information (clause 13 of rule XXIII). Clause
4(d)(1)(A) of rule X requires the Committee on House Administration to
provide policy direction for, and oversight of, the Inspector General, and
oversight of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer
The House has declined to interfere with the Clerk’s power of removing
subordinates (I, 249). Employees under the Clerk and other officers are
to be assigned only the duties for which they are appointed (V, 7232).
The Sergeant-at-Arms having died, the Clerk was elected by the House
to serve temporarily also as Sergeant-at-Arms without additional com-
pensation (July 8, 1953, p. 8242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 (2 U.S.C. 75a–1) authorizes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies
in the offices of Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and
Chaplain. A former version of the Act also permitted temporary appoint-
ments to the former offices of Doorkeeper and Postmaster. The Speaker
[356]
Rule II, clause 2 § 641–§ 642
has exercised the authority to fill temporary vacancies in the offices of

Sergeant-at-Arms (Jan. 6, 1954, p. 8; June 30, 1972, p. 23665; Feb. 28,
1980, p. 4350; and Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519), Clerk (Nov. 15, 1975, p. 36901;
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 257; Nov. 18, 2005, p. 27489), Chaplain (Mar. 14, 1966,
p. 5712; Mar. 23, 2000, p. 3481), Doorkeeper (Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41855),
and Chief Administrative Officer (Jan. 9, 1997, p. 279; July 15, 2010, p.
l). A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of
privilege (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Speaker Hastert, Dec. 6, 2005, p. 27569)
even when prospective (Feb. 6, 2007, p. 3156). The resignation of an elected
officer of the House is subject to acceptance by the House (Mar. 23, 2000,
p. 3480; Feb. 6, 2007, p. 3156) and may be prospective (July 15, 2010,
p. l).
Clerk
2. (a) At the commencement of the first ses-
§ 641. Clerk; sion of each Congress, the Clerk
commencement of
first session. shall call the Members, Delegates,
and Resident Commissioner to
order and proceed to record their presence by
States in alphabetical order, either by call of the
roll or by use of the electronic voting system.
Pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro
tempore, the Clerk shall preserve order and de-
corum and decide all questions of order, subject
to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
In 1880 several rules, adopted at different periods from 1794 to 1846,
were consolidated into this clause, which, before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, was found in rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Paragraph (a) was initially framed in 1880, on a basis furnished
by a rule of 1860 (I, 64), and amended in 1911.
Various administrative duties, similar to those specified in this clause,
are imposed on the Clerk by law (I, 253; Legislative
§ 642. Other duties of
the Clerk. Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812); and the law
also requires the furnishing of stationery, blank books,
etc., to the committees and officers of the House (V, 7322); to exercise
discretionary authority as to reprinting of bills and documents (V, 7319);
to receive the testimony taken in election contests (I, 703, 705; see also
Federal Contested Election Act, P.L. 91–138, 83 Stat. 284), to serve as
an ex officio member of the Federal Election Commission established pur-
suant to Public Law 94–283; 2 U.S.C. 437c; and to make certain reports
[357]
§ 643–§ 645 Rule II, clause 2
on receipts and expenditures (2 U.S.C. 102, 103, 113; see § 655, infra).
Instance of Clerk serving temporarily also as Sergeant-at-Arms (July 8,
1953, p. 8242).
As rules are not usually adopted until after the election of the Speaker,
§ 643. Clerk’s duties at
this paragraph is not in force at the time of organization
organization. of a new House. The procedure at organization does,
however, follow a practice conforming to the terms of
the paragraph (I, 81), although the House may depart from it. For a discus-
sion of procedure in the House before the adoption of rules, including the
procedure by which the Clerk conducts the election of the Speaker, see
§§ 27, 60, supra. The Clerk, in presiding before the election of the Speaker,
recognizes Members (I, 74). The Members-elect have on one occasion, before
the election of the Speaker or adoption of rules, authorized the Clerk and
Sergeant-at-Arms of the last House to preserve order (I, 101).
Although the Speaker ceases to be an officer of the House with the expira-
tion of a Congress, the Clerk, by old usage, continues in a new Congress
(I, 187, 188, 235, 244).
The roll of Members is made up by the Clerk from the credentials, in
§ 644. The roll of
accordance with a provision of law (I, 14–62; VI, 2; 2
Members-elect. U.S.C. 26). A certificate of election in due form having
been filed, the Clerk placed the name of the Member-
elect on the roll, although he was subsequently advised that a State Su-
preme Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State from
issuing such certificate (Jan. 3, 1949, p. 8). The call of the roll may not
be interrupted, especially by one not on that roll (I, 84), and a person
not on the roll may not be recognized (I, 86). A motion to proceed to the
election of the Speaker is of higher privilege than a motion to correct the
roll (I, 19–24). The House has declined to permit enrollment by the Clerk
to be final as to prima facie right (I, 376, 589, 592).
In early years the authority of the Clerk to decide questions of order
§ 645. Clerk as
pending the election of a Speaker was questioned (I,
presiding officer at 65). The Clerks often declined to make decisions (I, 68–
organizations. 72; V, 5325). However, in 1855 and 1997 the Clerk de-
cided a question of order; and in 1997 the Clerk was
sustained on appeal (I, 91; Jan. 7, 1997, pp. 115, 116). During the existence
of a rule that applied the rules of a prior House to a successor House
(1860 through 1890) (I, 64; V, 6743–6747) the Clerks made several rulings
(I, 76, 77; VI, 623).
Before clause 8(b)(3) of rule I, this clause operated also in the case of
a vacancy in the Office of the Speaker arising during a Congress. For exam-
ple, upon the death of the Speaker during an adjournment sine die of
the first session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House to order
on the first day of the second session (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). However, clause
8(b)(3) of rule I now requires the Speaker to deliver to the Clerk a list
of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore
in the case of a vacancy.
[358]
The Clerk having died, and in the absence of the Sergeant-at-Arms, the
Doorkeeper of the 79th Congress presided at organization of the 80th Con-
gress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). The Clerk, having been appointed pursuant
to 2 U.S.C. 75a–1 by the previous Speaker at the end of the 105th Congress
to fill a vacancy caused by resignation of the Clerk elected for that Con-
gress, presided at the organization of the 106th Congress (Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 41).
(b) At the commencement of every regular ses-

sion of Congress, the Clerk shall
§ 646. Clerk furnishes
a list of reports.
make and cause to be delivered to
each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Com-
missioner a list of the reports that any officer or
Department is required to make to Congress, cit-
ing the law or resolution in which the require-
ment may be contained and placing under the
name of each officer the list of reports required
to be made by such officer.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision
was found in former clause 2 of rule II (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The paragraph was initially adopted in 1822 (I, 252). It was amended in
the 107th Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the list in a form other
than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A gender-based
reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. l).
(c) The Clerk shall—

(1) note all questions of order, with the deci-
§ 647. Clerk’s duty as sions thereon, the record of which
to Journal and
documents. shall be appended to the Journal
of each session;
(2) enter on the Journal the hour at which
the House adjourns;
(3) complete the distribution of the Journal
to Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner, together with an accurate and
complete index, as soon as possible after the
close of a session; and
[359]
(4) send a copy of the Journal to the execu-

tive of and to each branch of the legislature of
every State as may be requested by such State
officials.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this para-
graph (except subparagraph (2)) was found in former clause 3 of rule III;
and subparagraph (2) was found in former clause 5 of rule XVI (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (2) was adopted initially in 1837
and amended in 1880 (V, 6740). Former provisions directing the Clerk
to make all contracts, keep contingent and stationery accounts, and pay
officers and employees were stricken by the House Administrative Reform
Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 102d Cong., Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9050) to
relieve the Clerk of functions to be transferred to the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services pursuant to that resolution (see § 664,
infra). Clerical corrections were effected at the beginning of the 104th Con-
gress (sec. 223(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469) and the 106th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). During the 104th Congress the requirement
to send a printed copy of the Journal to each branch of every State legisla-
ture was changed to an authorization to send such copies on request (H.
Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Subparagraphs (3) and (4) were amend-
ed in the 107th Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the Journal in
a form other than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(d)(1) The Clerk shall attest and affix the seal

§ 648. Attests and seals of the House to all writs, warrants,
process and certifies
passage of bills; and subpoenas issued by order of
oversees engrossment
and enrollment
the House and certify the passage
process. of all bills and joint resolutions.
(2) The Clerk shall examine all bills, amend-
ments, and joint resolutions after passage by the
House and, in cooperation with the Senate, ex-
amine all bills and joint resolutions that have
passed both Houses to see that they are cor-
rectly enrolled and forthwith present those bills
and joint resolutions that originated in the
House to the President in person after their sig-
nature by the Speaker and the President of the
[360]
Senate, and report to the House the fact and

date of their presentment.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, subpara-
graph (1) was found in former clause 3 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). When the House issues an order or warrant, the Speaker must
issue the summons under the Speaker’s hand and seal, and it must be
attested by the Clerk; but when the power is granted to a committee to
send for persons and papers under clause 2(m) of rule XI, a summons
signed by the chair of the committee is sufficient (III, 1668).
The enrollment process was originally the responsibility of the Com-
mittee on Enrolled Bills, which was created in 1789 by a joint rule of the
two Houses (IV, 4350). This joint rule lapsed in 1876 with other joint rules,
but in 1880 the Rules of the House were amended to again recognize the
Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 4350, 4416; VII, 2099). Responsibility
for the engrossment and enrollment process was given to the Committee
on House Administration when that committee was created effective Janu-
ary 2, 1947 as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812) as an enumerated subject of legislative jurisdiction. That responsi-
bility was transferred from the committee’s legislative jurisdiction to its
special oversight jurisdiction (see former clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X) by
the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470) and was transferred to
the Clerk in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 28).
A special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules directing
the Clerk to refrain from certifying an enrollment pending the resolution
of a given contingency does not violate subparagraph (2) (Apr. 13, 2011,
p. l).
(e) The Clerk shall cause the calendars of the

§ 649. Calendars House to be distributed each legis-
distributed.
lative day.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph
(e) was found in former clause 6 of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). This paragraph was adopted initially in the 62d Congress, April
5, 1911 (VI, 743), and amended December 8, 1931 (pp. 10, 83). It was
amended in the 107th Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the cal-
endars in a form other than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 25).
(f) The Clerk shall—

(1) retain in the library at the Office of the
§ 650. Documents. Clerk for the use of the Members,
Delegates, Resident Commis-
[361]
sioner, and officers of the House, and not to be

withdrawn therefrom, two copies of all the
books and printed documents deposited there;
and
(2) deliver to any Member, Delegate, or the
Resident Commissioner an extra copy of each
document requested by that Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner that has been
printed by order of either House of Congress
in any Congress in which the Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner served.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraphs
(c) and (f) were found in former clause 3 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). They were amended in the 92d Congress to include Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner among those entitled to the listed services
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, pp. 140–44; H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp.
36013–15). Paragraph (f) was amended in the 107th Congress to permit
the Clerk to distribute documents by a method other than mail and in
a form other than bound (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(g) The Clerk shall provide for the temporary

§ 651. Official to act as absence or disability of the Clerk by
Clerk upon
designation. designating an official in the Office
of the Clerk to sign all papers that
may require the official signature of the Clerk
and to perform all other official acts that the
Clerk may be required to perform under the
rules and practices of the House, except such of-
ficial acts as are provided for by statute. Official
acts performed by the designated official shall be
under the name of the Clerk. The designation
shall be in writing and shall be laid before the
House and entered on the Journal.
graph was found in former clause 4 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). It was adopted initially on January 18, 1912 (VI, 25) and was amend-
[362]
ed January 3, 1953 (p. 16). Form of designation of a Clerk pro tempore

(VI, 26). Technical corrections were effected in the 108th Congress (sec.
2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-based reference was eliminated
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
(h) The Clerk may receive messages from the

President and from the Senate at
§ 652. Authority to
receive messages.
any time when the House is in re-
cess or adjournment.
p. 47). It was adopted in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp.
98–113) and amended in the 111th Congress to apply to recesses as well
as adjournments (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l) to reflect current
practice (see Dec. 22, 1987, p. 37966). In the case of Kennedy v. Sampson,
511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (see § 113, supra, accompanying Const., art.
I, sec. 7, cl. 2) a United States court of appeals held that a bill could not
be pocket-vetoed by the President during an ‘‘intrasession’’ adjournment
of Congress to a day certain for more than three days, where the House
of origin has made appropriate arrangements for the receipt of Presidential
messages during the adjournment.
(i)(1) The Clerk shall supervise the staff and

manage the office of a Member, Del-
of vacant Member’s
office. egate, or Resident Commissioner
who has died, resigned, or been ex-
pelled until a successor is elected. The Clerk
shall perform similar duties in the event that a
vacancy is declared by the House in any congres-
sional district because of the incapacity of the
person representing such district or other rea-
son. When acting as a supervisory authority
over such staff, the Clerk shall have authority to
terminate employees and, with the approval of
the Committee on House Administration, may
appoint such staff as is required to operate the
office until a successor is elected.
(2) For 60 days following the death of a former
Speaker, the Clerk shall maintain on the House
[363]
payroll, and shall supervise in the same manner,

staff appointed under House Resolution 1238,
Ninety-first Congress (as enacted into perma-
nent law by chapter VIII of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1971) (2 U.S.C. 31b–5).
p. 47). It was adopted initially in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1983, p. 34). It was amended in the 104th and 106th Congresses to reflect
changes in the name of the Committee on House Administration (sec.
202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
(j) In addition to any other reports required by

§ 654. Semi-annual the Speaker or the Committee on
reports.
House Administration, the Clerk
shall report to the Committee on House Admin-
istration not later than 45 days following the
close of each semiannual period ending on June
30 or on December 31 on the financial and oper-
ational status of each function under the juris-
diction of the Clerk. Each report shall include fi-
nancial statements and a description or expla-
nation of current operations, the implementation
of new policies and procedures, and future plans
for each function.
(k) The Clerk shall fully cooperate with the
§ 655. Cooperation appropriate offices and persons in
with others.
the performance of reviews and au-
dits of financial records and administrative oper-
ations.
(j) and (k) were found in former clauses 7 and 8 of rule III (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the 104th Congress
(sec. 201(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). A conforming change was
[364]
effected at the beginning of the 106th Congress in the name of the Com-
mittee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Clerk is also required to make certain reports on receipts and ex-
penditures under law (2 U.S.C. 103, 113), which are available to the public.
However, members of the public have no statutory or constitutional right
to examine the actual financial records that are used in preparing such
reports. Trimble v. Johnston, 173 F. Supp. 651 (D.C. Cir. 1959).
Sergeant-at-Arms
3. (a) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall attend the
§ 656. Sergeant-at- House during its sittings and main-
Arms enforces
authority of House. tain order under the direction of the
Speaker or other presiding officer.
The Sergeant-at-Arms shall execute the com-
mands of the House, and all processes issued by
authority thereof, directed to the Sergeant-at-
Arms by the Speaker.
graph was found in former clause 1 of rule IV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1789, with additions and amendments
in 1838, 1877, 1890 (I, 257), 1911 (VI, 29), and 1971. A gender-based ref-
erence was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. l). Amendments adopted in the 92d Congress to clarify the
responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms to keep the accounts for the pay
and mileage of the Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, and
the Virgin Islands and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico as
well as for Members (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144; H. Res. 1153, Oct.
13, 1972, pp. 36013–15) were stricken by the House Administrative Reform
Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 102d Cong., Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9039) to
relieve the Sergeant-at-Arms of functions transferred to the Director of
Non-legislative and Financial Services pursuant to that resolution (see
§ 664, supra). In the 94th Congress, the provisions of House Resolution
732, directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to enter into agreements with State
officials, with the approval of the Committee on House Administration,
to withhold State income taxes from the pay of each Member subject to
such State income tax and requesting such withholding, were enacted into
permanent law (90 Stat. 1448; 2 U.S.C. 60e–1b). During the 102d Congress,
the House adopted a resolution presented by the Majority Leader as a
question of the privileges of the House to terminate all bank and check-
cashing operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and direct the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to review GAO audits of such
operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435). When former rule IV was rewritten
[365]
in the 104th Congress, clause 1 was restated without change (sec. 201(c),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
The Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to make payments from the contin-
gent fund of the House (now referred to as ‘‘applicable accounts of the
House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X’’), under rules prescribed by
the Committee on House Administration, to defray the expenses of the
funeral of a deceased Member of the House and the expenses of any delega-
tion of Members of Congress duly appointed to attend (76 Stat. 686; 2
U.S.C. 124).
The Speaker ordered that documents received in a communication from
an independent counsel advising the House of substantial and credible
information that may constitute grounds for impeachment of the President
be kept under armed guard of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the House deter-
mined which documents to make available to the public (Sept. 9, 1998,
p. 19769).
At the organization of the House in a new Congress the election of Speak-
er occurs before the adoption of rules. Therefore this rule is not in force
at that time, and in case of necessity a special rule may be adopted confer-
ring the authority, as was done in 1849 and 1859 (I, 101, 102).
Duties imposed on the Sergeant-at-Arms by law (I, 258) include control
of the Capitol Police; and the making up of the roll of Members-elect and
presiding over the organization of a new Congress in case of vacancy in
the Office of the Clerk, or the absence or disability of that officer (2 U.S.C.
26). The death of the Sergeant-at-Arms being announced, the House passed
appropriate resolutions and adjourned as a mark of respect (VI, 32; July
8, 1953, p. 8263). The Clerk having died, and in the absence of the Sergeant-
at-Arms, the Doorkeeper of the 79th Congress presided at the organization
of the 80th Congress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). In the 83d Congress the Sergeant-
at-Arms having died, the Clerk was elected to serve temporarily both as
Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms (July 8, 1953, p. 8242), and upon resignation
by the Clerk from the additional position of Sergeant-at-Arms, the Speaker,
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 75a–1, appointed a temporary Sergeant-at-Arms (Jan.
6, 1954, p. 8). The Sergeant-at-Arms having resigned in the 96th Congress,
the Speaker appointed a temporary Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to the stat-
ute (Feb. 28, 1980, pp. 4349–50); and the same occurred in the 102d Con-
gress (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519).
(b) The symbol of the Office of

§ 657. The mace is the the
Sergeant-at-Arms shall be
symbol of Sergeant-at-
Arms’ office.
the
mace, which shall be borne by the
Sergeant-at-Arms while enforcing order on the
floor.
graph was found in former clause 2 of rule IV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1789 (II, 1346). When former rule IV
[366]
was rewritten entirely in the 104th Congress, the paragraph was restated
without change (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Extreme disorder arising on the floor, the Speaker
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce order with the mace (VI, 258;
VIII, 2530), but an attempt to enforce order without the mace has been
questioned as illegitimate (II, 1347).
(c) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall enforce strictly

the rules relating to the privileges
§ 658. Doorkeeping.
of the Hall of the House and be re-

sponsible to the House for the official conduct of
employees of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
(d) The Sergeant-at-Arms may not allow a per-
son to enter the room over the Hall of the House
during its sittings and, from 15 minutes before
the hour of the meeting of the House each day
until 10 minutes after adjournment, shall see
that the floor is cleared of all persons except
those privileged to remain.
(c) and (d) were found in former clauses 3 and 4 of rule IV (H. Res. 5,
to transfer functions incident to the abolishment of the Office of the Door-
keeper (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Gender-based references
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l). For the history of the Office of the Doorkeeper, see § 663a, infra.
(e) In addition to any other reports required

by the Speaker or the Committee
§ 659. Semi-annual
reports.
on House Administration, the Ser-
geant-at-Arms shall report to the Committee on
House Administration not later than 45 days fol-
lowing the close of each semiannual period end-
ing on June 30 or on December 31 on the finan-
cial and operational status of each function
under the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Each report shall include financial statements
[367]
and a description or explanation of current oper-

ations, the implementation of new policies and
procedures, and future plans for each function.
(f) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall fully cooperate
§ 660. Cooperation with the appropriate offices and
with others.
persons in the performance of re-
views and audits of financial records and admin-
istrative operations.
(e) and (f) were found in former clauses 5 and 6 of rule IV (H. Res. 5,
(sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). A conforming change was
effected at the beginning of the 106th Congress in the name of the Com-
mittee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Chief Administrative Officer

4. (a) The Chief Administrative Officer shall
§ 661. Duties. have operational and financial re-
sponsibility for functions as as-
signed by the Committee on House Administra-
tion and shall be subject to the oversight of the
Committee on House Administration.
(b) In addition to any other reports required
§ 662. Semi-annual by the Committee on House Admin-
reports.
istration, the Chief Administrative
Officer shall report to the Committee on House
Administration not later than 45 days following
the close of each semiannual period ending on
June 30 or December 31 on the financial and
operational status of each function under the ju-
risdiction of the Chief Administrative Officer.
Each report shall include financial statements
and a description or explanation of current oper-
ations, the implementation of new policies and
procedures, and future plans for each function.
[368]
(c) The Chief Administrative Officer shall fully

cooperate with the appropriate of-
§ 663. Cooperation
with others.
fices and persons in the perform-
ance of reviews and audits of financial records
and administrative operations.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clause 4
was found in former rule V (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was adopted
initially in this form in the 104th Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 463). It was amended in the 105th Congress to eliminate the
supervisory role of the Speaker over the Chief Administrative Officer (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A conforming change was effected at the
beginning of the 106th Congress in the name of the Committee on House
Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was amended in the
107th Congress to reflect the removal of the requirement that the Com-
mittee on House Administration provide policy direction to the Chief Ad-
ministrative Officer (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The earlier
form of the rule enumerated the duties of the Doorkeeper, which were
transferred to the Sergeant-at-Arms incident to the abolishment of the
Office of the Doorkeeper.
Before the 104th Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463),
§ 663a. Former Office
rule V enumerated the duties of the Doorkeeper, who
of Doorkeeper. enforced the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall
of the House. The earlier form of the rule was adopted
in 1838 and amended in 1869, 1880 (I, 260), and 1890 (V, 7295). By law
the Doorkeeper was assigned certain administrative duties (I, 262), includ-
ing certain housekeeping functions. Through employees and appointees,
the Doorkeeper also discharged various duties not enumerated in the law
or in the rules, such as announcing at the door of the Hall of the House
all messengers from the President and the Senate (V, 6591). The Clerk
having died, and the Sergeant-at-Arms having been absent, the Doorkeeper
of the 79th Congress presided at the organization of the 80th Congress
(Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). In the 78th Congress, the House adopted a resolution
on the death of the Doorkeeper and appointed a committee to attend his
funeral (Jan. 28, 1943, pp. 421, 422).
The Chief Administrative Officer supplanted the Director of Non-legisla-
tive and Financial Services formerly provided for under
§ 664. Former Director
of Non-legislative and clause 1 of rule VI in the 103d Congress, which cor-
Financial Services. responded to an erstwhile rule LII of the 102d Con-
gress. Certain functions and entities formerly within
the purview of elected officers were transferred to the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services pursuant to the House Administrative
Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040), which also
vested the Committee on House Administration with authority to prescribe
regulations providing for the orderly transfer of such functions and entities
[369]
and any other transfers necessary for the improvement of non-legislative

and financial services in the House, so long as not transferring a function
or entity within the jurisdiction of the committee under rule X. Pursuant
to clause 1 of rule VI of the 103d Congress (then still designated as rule
LII of the 102d Congress), the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Mi-
nority Leader jointly appointed the first Director of Non-legislative and
Financial Services on October 23, 1992 (Oct. 29, 1992, p. 34802).
Chaplain
5. The Chaplain shall offer a prayer at the
§ 665. Duties of the commencement of each day’s sitting
Chaplain.
of the House.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause
was found in former rule VII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was adopted
initially in 1880 (I, 272), but the sessions of the House were opened with
prayer from the first, and the Chaplain was an officer of the House before
the adoption of the rule (I, 273–282). The Chaplain takes the oath pre-
scribed for the officers of the House (VI, 31; Feb. 1, 1950, p. 1311). Prayer
by the Chaplain is not business requiring the presence of a quorum and
the Speaker declines to entertain a point of no quorum before prayer is
offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX). There is no precedent for prayer
to be offered by the Chaplain during a continuous session of the House,
absent an adjournment or recess (compare Apr. 22 and 23, 1985, pp. 8753
and 8959). Form of resignation of the Chaplain (Feb. 28, 1921, p. 4075;
Jan. 30, 1950, p. 1097; Mar. 23, 2000, p. 3480). Form of resolution electing
a Chaplain emeritus (VI, 31; Jan. 30, 1950, p. 1095; Nov. 10, 1999, p.
29493).
During the 97th Congress, the Supreme Court held that employment
of a chaplain for the legislative body of Nebraska did not violate the Estab-
lishment Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. Marsh v.
Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The Court of Appeals cited the Marsh
decision as controlling authority in a similar challenge to the House Chap-
lain. Murray v. Buchanan, 729 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The House adopt-
ed a privileged resolution articulating its position in the Murray case (H.
Res. 413, Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890).
Office of Inspector General

6. (a) There is established an Office of Inspec-
§ 667. Inspector tor General.
General.
[370]
(b) The Inspector General shall be appointed

for a Congress by the Speaker, the Majority
Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly.
(c) Subject to the policy direction and over-
sight of the Committee on House Administra-
tion, the Inspector General shall only—
(1) provide audit, investigative, and advisory
services to the House and joint entities in a
manner consistent with government-wide
standards;
(2) inform the officers or other officials who
are the subject of an audit of the results of
that audit and suggesting appropriate curative
actions;
(3) simultaneously notify the Speaker, the
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the
chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration in the
case of any financial irregularity discovered in
the course of carrying out responsibilities
under this clause;
(4) simultaneously submit to the Speaker,
the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and
the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration a report
of each audit conducted under this clause; and
(5) report to the Committee on Ethics infor-
mation involving possible violations by a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, of-
ficer, or employee of the House of any rule of
the House or of any law applicable to the per-
formance of official duties or the discharge of
official responsibilities that may require refer-
[371]
ral to the appropriate Federal or State au-

thorities under clause 3(a)(3) of rule XI.
was found in former rule VI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was adopted
initially in this form at the beginning of the 104th Congress (sec. 201(c),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Later in the 104th Congress and in the
106th Congress it was amended to effect a technical correction (H. Res.
254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Its predecessor
form was composed in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49)
by combining two rules adopted in the House Administrative Reform Reso-
lution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 102d Cong., Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040). Paragraph
(c)(1) was amended, and gender-based references were eliminated, in the
111th Congress (secs. 2(a), 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Paragraph
(c)(5) was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee
name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
In the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, paragraph (a)
(formerly clause 1) corresponded to an erstwhile rule LII of the 102d Con-
gress (relating to the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services,
who in the 104th Congress was supplanted by the Chief Administrative
Officer; see clause 4 of rule II, §§ 661–663, supra), and paragraph (b) (for-
merly clause 2) corresponded to an erstwhile rule LIII of the 102d Congress
(relating to the Inspector General). The 104th Congress rewrote clause
2 of rule VI (as it was composed in the 103d Congress) to occupy all of
rule VI and to: broaden the auditing responsibilities beyond the offices
of the elected officers (paragraph (c)(1), formerly clause 2(c)(1)); add re-
quirements for simultaneous reporting (paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), formerly
clauses 2(c)(3) and (4)); delete a provision relating to classification of em-
ployees (formerly clause 2(d)); and add the responsibility to report certain
information to the Committee on Ethics (paragraph (c)(5)) (sec. 201, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). The 104th Congress also mandated that the
Inspector General, in consultation with the Speaker and the Committee
on House Administration, procure an independent and comprehensive
audit of House financial records and administrative operations and report
the results thereof in accord with this rule (sec. 107, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 463).
Until the 102d Congress, former rule VI provided for an Office of the
§ 668. Former Office of
Postmaster, which supervised the post offices of the
the Postmaster. House and the delivery of its mail. The earlier form
of the rule was adopted in 1838 and amended in 1880
(I, 270), 1911 (VI, 34), 1971 (H. Res. 5, 92d Cong., p. 144), and 1972 (H.
Res. 1153, 92d Cong., pp. 36013–15). The Office of the Postmaster was
abolished during the 102d Congress by the House Administrative Reform
Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040).
[372]
Office of the Historian

7. There is established an Office of the Histo-
§ 669. Historian. rian of the House of Representa-
tives. The Speaker shall appoint
and set the annual rate of pay for employees of
the Office of the Historian.
was found in former clause 10 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
It was adopted initially in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989,
p. 72). The second sentence was added in the 106th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). An earlier form of this clause provided for the
seven-year establishment of an Office for the Bicentennial to coordinate
the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the House of Representa-
tives (H. Res. 621, 97th Cong., Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31951). The management,
supervision, and administration of the office was under the direction of
the Speaker and was staffed by a professional historian appointed by the
Speaker on a nonpartisan basis. In 1984 the Office of the Bicentennial
was removed from the standing rules and established by law for the re-
mainder of its existence in P.L. 98–367 (2 U.S.C. 29c). Apart from the
Office of the Historian, the History of the House Awareness and Preserva-
tion Act requires the Librarian of Congress to prepare a new and complete
written history of the House in consultation with the Committee on House
Administration (2 U.S.C. 183). The Act also requires the Librarian to accept
for deposit, preserve, maintain, and make accessible an oral history of the
House as told by its Members and former Members (2 U.S.C. 183a).
Office of General Counsel

8. There is established an Office of General
§ 670. General Counsel. Counsel for the purpose of pro-
viding legal assistance and rep-
resentation to the House. Legal assistance and
representation shall be provided without regard
to political affiliation. The Office of General
Counsel shall function pursuant to the direction
of the Speaker, who shall consult with a Bipar-
tisan Legal Advisory Group, which shall include
the majority and minority leaderships. The
Speaker shall appoint and set the annual rate of
[373]
§ 671 Rule III, clause 1
pay for employees of the Office of General Coun-

sel.
It was adopted initially in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993,
p. 49). The previous year, in the House Administrative Reform Resolution
of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040), the House had directed the
Committee on House Administration to provide for an Office of General
Counsel in a manner ensuring appropriate coordination with and participa-
tion by both the majority and minority leaderships in matters of represen-
tation and litigation.
The General Counsel is authorized by law to appear in any proceeding
before a State or Federal court (except the United States Supreme Court)
without compliance with admission requirements of such court (2 U.S.C.
130f(a)). Furthermore, the law requires the Attorney General to notify the
General Counsel of a determination not to appeal a court decision affecting
the constitutionality of an Act (2 U.S.C. 130f(b)). The House may authorize
the General Counsel to represent a committee or take other action in a
judicial proceeding (Feb. 14, 2008, p. l; sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l).
RULE III
THE MEMBERS, DELEGATES, AND RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER OF PUERTO RICO
Voting
1. Every Member shall be present within the
§ 671. Personal Hall of the House during its
interest.
sittings, unless excused or nec-
essarily prevented, and shall vote on each ques-
tion put, unless having a direct personal or pe-
cuniary interest in the event of such question.
When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated former rule VIII,
rule XII, and clause 6(h) of rule X under rule III, except that viable provi-
sions of former clause 2 of rule VIII were transferred to current clause
3 of rule XX. This clause was adopted initially in 1789, with amendment
in 1890 (V, 5941). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodi-
fied its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause was found in former clause
1 of rule VIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[374]
Rule III, clause 1 § 672–§ 673
Leaves of absence are presented pending the motion to adjourn (IV,

3151), and are usually granted by unanimous consent, but sometimes are
opposed or even refused (II, 1142–1145). Application for leave of absence
is properly presented by filing with the Clerk the printed form to be secured
at the desk rather than by oral request from the floor (VI, 199). Whether
or not they are privileged is a matter of doubt (II, 1146, 1147). Excuses
for absence, as distinguished from leaves of absence, may be granted by
less than a quorum (IV, 3000–3002). The statutes provide that deductions
may be made from the salaries of Members who are absent without suffi-
cient excuse (II, 1149, 1150); and although this law has been enforced
(IV, 3011, footnote; VI, 30, 198), its general application is not practical
under modern conditions. Form of resolution for the arrest of Members
absent without leave (VI, 686).
It has been found impracticable to enforce the provision requiring every
§ 672. Control of a
Member to vote (V, 5942–5948), and such question,
Member’s own vote. even if entertained, may not interrupt a pending record
vote (V, 5947). The weight of authority also favors the
idea that there is no authority in the House to deprive a Member of the
right to vote (V, 5937, 5952, 5959, 5966, 5967; VIII, 3072). In one or two
early instances the Speaker decided that because of personal interest, a
Member should not vote (V, 5955, 5958); but on all other occasions and
in the later practice the Speaker has held that the Member and not the
Chair should determine this question (V, 5950, 5951; VIII, 3071; Speaker
Albert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135; Speaker O’Neill, Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748;
July 30, 1996, p. 19952; July 16, 2009, p. l), and the Speaker has denied
the Speaker’s own power to deprive a Member of the constitutional right
to vote (V, 5956; Speaker Albert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135; Speaker O’Neill,
Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748).
The House has at times excused Members from voting in cases of per-
sonal interest (III, 2294; V, 5962; Aug. 2, 1949, pp. 10591, 10592; Oct.
20, 1951, p. 13746; July 21, 1954, p. 11262; July 28, 1955, p. 11930; July
12, 1956, p. 12566).
It is a principle of ‘‘immemorial observance’’ that a Member should with-
§ 673. Nature of
draw when a question concerning that Member arises
disqualifying personal (V, 5949); but it has been held that the disqualifying
interest. interest must be such as affects the Member directly
(V, 5954, 5955, 5963), and not as one of a class (V, 5952;
VIII, 3071, 3072; Speaker Bankhead, May 31, 1939, p. 6359; Speaker Al-
bert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135). In a case in which question affected the titles
of several Members to their seats, each refrained from voting in his own
case, but did vote on the identical cases of his associates (V, 5957, 5958).
A Member should not vote on direct questions affecting that Member, but
has sometimes voted on incidental questions (V, 5960, 5961).
[375]
§ 674–§ 675 Rule III, clause 3
2. (a) A Member may not authorize any other

person to cast the vote of such
§ 674. Voting.
Member or record the presence of

such Member in the House or the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
(b) No other person may cast a Member’s vote
or record a Member’s presence in the House or
the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union.
was found in former clause 3 of rule VIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). The Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) recommended this addition to the rules in its May
15, 1980, report on voting anomalies that had occurred in the House (H.
Rept. 96–991), and the House adopted the rule in the 97th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113). Even before the addition of this clause,
however, ‘‘ghost voting’’ was considered unethical (VII, 1014; Dec. 18, 1987,
p. 36274).
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner

3. (a) Each Delegate and the Resident Com-
§ 675. Committee missioner shall be elected to serve
service.
on standing committees in the same
manner as Members and shall possess in such
committees the same powers and privileges as
the other members of the committee.
was found in former rule XII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The first
form of paragraph (a) was adopted in 1871, and it was perfected by amend-
ments in 1876, 1880, 1887, and 1892 (II, 1297). Reference to the Resident
Commissioner was first found in 1904 (II, 1306). Paragraph (a) was again
amended on January 2, 1947 (Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946), Au-
gust 2, 1949 (p. 10618), February 2, 1951 (p. 883), January 22, 1971 (H.
Res. 5, 92d Cong., p. 144), January 3, 1973 (H. Res. 6, 93d Cong., p. 26),
January 3, 1991 (H. Res. 5, 102d Cong., p. 39), and January 5, 2011 (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l) (technical correction). Paragraph (a) was com-
pletely revised in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) to
provide that each of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner be elect-
[376]
Rule III, clause 3 § 675
ed to committees of the House on the same bases, vote in any committees

on which they serve, and vote on questions arising in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union. The latter power was affected
by former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII (later changed to clause 6(h) of rule
XVIII) (providing for immediate reconsideration in the House of questions
resolved in the Committee of the Whole by a margin within which the
votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were decisive; see § 985,
infra). The changes effected in the 103d Congress were revoked in the
104th Congress (sec. 212, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462), reinstated in
the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78, Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), and revoked in
the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The constitutionality of granting to Delegates the right to vote in the
Committee of the Whole under the former rule, as circumscribed by former
clause 2(d) of rule XXIII (later changed to clause 6(h) of rule XVIII), was
upheld based on the premise that immediate ‘‘revote’’ where votes cast
by Delegates had been decisive rendered their votes merely symbolic and
not an investment of true legislative power. Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d
623 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
The Office of Delegate was established by ordinance of the Continental
Congress and confirmed by a law of Congress (I, 400, 421). The nature
of the office has been the subject of much discussion (I, 400, 403, 473);
and except as provided by law (I, 431, 526) the qualifications of the Delegate
also have been a matter of discussion (I, 421, 423, 469, 470, 473). A territory
or district must be organized by law before the House will admit a Delegate
(I, 405, 407, 411, 412). The Office of Delegate from the District of Columbia
was established by Public Law 91–405 (84 Stat. 845). The Offices of Dele-
gate from the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands were established
by Public Law 92–271 (86 Stat. 118). The Office of Delegate from American
Samoa was established by Public Law 95–556 (92 Stat. 2078) and was
first filled by the general Federal election of 1980. The Office of Delegate
from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was established
by Public Law 110–229 (122 Stat. 868). The Office of Resident Commis-
sioner was established (with a four-year term) by the Act of March 2, 1917
(39 Stat. 963; 48 U.S.C. 891). The Act of May 17, 1932, changed the name
of Porto Rico to Puerto Rico (48 U.S.C. 731a).
Under an earlier practice, Delegates did not vote in committee (VI, 243);
but this had not always been so (II, 1301). The Resident Commissioner,
who under the rules of the 91st and earlier Congresses, was designated
as an additional member of the Committees on Agriculture, Armed Serv-
ices, and Interior and Insular Affairs, is now elected to committees in the
same fashion as are other Members.
The law provides that on the floor of the House a Delegate may debate
(II, 1290), and may in debate call a Member to order (II, 1295), may make
any motion that a Member may make except the motion to reconsider
(II, 1291, 1292), and may make a point of order (VI, 240). A Delegate
has even moved an impeachment (II, 1303). However, a resolution offered
[377]
§ 676 Rule III, clause 3
from the floor to permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote
on the articles of impeachment against the President was held not to con-
stitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Dec. 18,
1998, p. 27825). A Delegate may be appointed a teller (II, 1302); but the
law forbids a Delegate to vote (II, 1290). A Delegate has been recognized
to object to the consideration of a bill (VI, 241), to a unanimous-consent
request to concur in a Senate amendment (June 29, 1984, p. 20267), and
has made reports for committees (July 1, 1958, p. 12870). A discharge
petition may not be signed by a Delegate or the Resident Commissioner,
even by unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 2003, p. 23853) because the phrase
in clause 2 of rule XV ‘‘a majority of the total membership of the House’’
is construed to mean 218 Members (Speaker Byrns, Apr. 15, 1936, p. 5509),
not including Delegates or the Resident Commissioner. The rights and
prerogatives of Delegates in parliamentary matters are not limited to legis-
lation affecting their own territory (VI, 240). Under paragraph (a), the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are counted for purposes of es-
tablishing a quorum in a Committee of the Whole (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550).
At the organization of the House, the Delegates and Resident Commis-
sioner are sworn (I, 400, 401); but the Clerk does not put them on the
roll (I, 61, 62; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 41).
A Delegate resigns in a communication addressed to the Speaker (II,
1304). A Delegate may be arrested and censured for disorderly conduct
(II, 1305), but there has been disagreement as to whether expulsion is
by a majority or two-thirds vote (I, 469).
The privileges of the floor with the right to debate were extended to
Resident Commissioners in the 60th Congress (VI, 244). Before the inde-
pendence of the Philippines it was represented in the House by a Resident
Commissioner (Deschler, ch. 7, § 3.3).
(b) The Delegates and the Resident Commis-

§ 676. Appointment to sioner may be appointed to any se-
select and conference
committees. lect committee and to any con-
ference committee.
(b) was found in former clause 6(h) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Paragraph (b), effective January 3, 1975, initially authorized the
appointment of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to certain con-
ferences (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (b)
was amended in the 96th Congress to authorize their appointment to select
committees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16), and again in the 103d
Congress to authorize their appointment to any conference (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49).
Before the adoption and refinement of this paragraph, a Delegate or
the Resident Commissioner could not be appointed to a conference com-
mittee (Sept. 18, 1973, p. 30144; July 20, 1973, p. 25201); and they could
[378]
Rule IV, clause 2 § 677–§ 678
be appointed to a select committee only with the permission of the House

(Sept. 21, 1976, p. 31673).
RULE IV
THE HALL OF THE HOUSE
Use and admittance

1. The Hall of the House shall be used only for
§ 677. Use of the Hall the legislative business of the
of the House.
House and for caucus and con-
ference meetings of its Members, except when
the House agrees to take part in any ceremonies
to be observed therein.
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consoli-
dated former rules XXXI, XXXII, and XXXIII under rule IV, and clause
1 was found in former rule XXXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Rules
relating to the use of the Hall were adopted as early as 1804. The present
form of this clause dates from 1880 (V, 7270). It was renumbered January
3, 1953 (p. 24). A technical amendment to this clause, in conjunction with
one to clause 2(b), was effected in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The Speaker has announced standards for use of
the Chamber when the House is not in session (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6,
2009, p. l).
2. (a) Only the following persons shall be ad-

§ 678. Persons and mitted to the Hall of the House or
officials admitted to
the floor during rooms leading thereto:
sessions of the House.
(1) Members of Congress, Members-elect,

and contestants in election cases during the
pendency of their cases on the floor.
(2) The Delegates and the Resident Commis-
sioner.
(3) The President and Vice President of the
United States and their private secretaries.
(4) Justices of the Supreme Court.
[379]
§ 678 Rule IV, clause 2
(5) Elected officers and minority employees

nominated as elected officers of the House.
(6) The Parliamentarian.
(7) Staff of committees when business from
their committee is under consideration, and
staff of the respective party leaderships when
so assigned with the approval of the Speaker.
(8) Not more than one person from the staff
of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner when that Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner has an amendment under
consideration (subject to clause 5).
(9) The Architect of the Capitol.
(10) The Librarian of Congress and the as-
sistant in charge of the Law Library.
(11) The Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of
the Senate.
(12) Heads of departments.
(13) Foreign ministers.
(14) Governors of States.
(15) Former Members, Delegates, and Resi-
dent Commissioners; former Parliamentarians
of the House; and former elected officers and
minority employees nominated as elected offi-
cers of the House (subject to clause 4).
(16) One attorney to accompany a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who is
the respondent in an investigation undertaken
by the Committee on Ethics when a rec-
ommendation of that committee is under con-
sideration in the House.
(17) Such persons as have, by name, re-
ceived the thanks of Congress.
[380]
Rule IV, clause 2 § 678
(b) The Speaker may not entertain a unani-

mous consent request or a motion to suspend
this clause or clauses 1, 3, 4, or 5.
was found in former clause 1 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). It was subjected to many changes from 1802 until 1880 (V, 7283; VIII,
3634) and was renumbered in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24). The
rule was amended in the 92d Congress to include the Delegate from the
District of Columbia among those having the privilege of the floor (H. Res.
5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and later in that Congress was revised to grant
all Delegates the privilege (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36021–23).
The latter revision was necessary because of the enactment of Public Law
92–271, which created the positions of Delegate from Guam and Delegate
from the Virgin Islands. Officers and elected employees, both present and
former, were given floor privileges by the adoption of this same resolution
(H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36013) but had in fact, by custom, been
permitted on the floor before this change. This clause was substantially
amended in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 1435, Oct. 1, 1976, pp. 35175–
80) and was amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to permit floor
privileges for one attorney for a Member-respondent during consideration
of a disciplinary resolution (P.L. 101–194, Nov. 30, 1989). Clause 2(a)(7)
was amended in the 108th Congress to extend floor privileges to party
leadership staff when so assigned with the approval of the Speaker (sec.
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). This amendment codified current prac-
tice, including the Speaker’s ultimate control over such assignments. In
the 112th Congress, paragraph (a)(16) was amended to reflect a change
in committee name and paragraph (b) was amended to clarify the breadth
of the restriction on suspending various prohibitions of rule IV, which had
been unintentionally narrowed by recodification in the 106th Congress
(secs. 2(e)(8), 2(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The portion of this clause that permits clerks of committees access to
the floor during the consideration of business from their committees has
been interpreted by the Speaker to allow four professional staff members
and one clerk on the floor at one time (Speaker Albert, June 8, 1972, p.
20318; Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 26, 1977, p. 2333). The Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970, section 503(3) (84 Stat. 1140, 1202; 2 U.S.C. 281b(3)),
also allows two staff members of the Legislative Counsel access to the
floor to assist the committee.
The portion of the clause forbidding the Speaker to entertain requests
for suspension of certain clauses applies also to the chair of the Committee
of the Whole (V, 7285) but the House may grant specific access by resolution
(e.g., July 26, 2010, p. l). ‘‘Heads of departments’’ means members of
the President’s Cabinet, and not subordinate executive officers, and ‘‘for-
eign ministers’’ means ministers from foreign governments only. ‘‘Gov-
[381]
ernors of States’’ does not include governors of territories (V, 7283; VIII,
3634).
An alleged violation of the rule relating to admission to the floor presents
a question of privilege (III, 2624, 2625; VI, 579), but not a higher question
of privilege than an election case (III, 2626). In one case in which a former
Member was abusing the privilege, he was excluded by direction of the
Speaker (V, 7288), but in another case the Speaker declared it a matter
for the House and not the Chair to consider (V, 7286). In one case an
alleged abuse was inquired into by a select committee (V, 7287). See § 680,
infra, for the rule constraining conduct of former Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, officers, and staff while on the floor. The Speaker
announced an intention to strictly enforce the rule to prevent a prolifera-
tion of committee and other staff on the floor (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30027;
Jan. 19, 1981, p. 402; Jan. 25, 1983, p. 224). The Speaker announced that
committee staff would be required to display staff badges on the floor in
exchange for identification cards before admission to the floor (Speaker
O’Neill, Jan. 21, 1986, p. 5; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105). It is not in order to
refer to persons on the floor of the House as guests of the House, such
as Members’ children (Apr. 28, 1994, p. 8783; Dec. 19, 1995, p. 37575;
Jan. 22, 1996, p. 682; Apr. 30, 1998, p. 7320; June 17, 2004, p. 12847),
other children (May 18, 1995, p. 13490; Oct. 7, 1999, p. 24425), or Senators
exercising floor privileges (May 18, 1995, p. 13491).
3. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), all

§ 679. Admission to the persons not entitled to the privilege
floor when the House
is not sitting. of the floor during the session shall
be excluded at all times from the
Hall of the House and the cloakrooms.
(b) Until 15 minutes of the hour of the meet-
ing of the House, persons employed in its serv-
ice, accredited members of the press entitled to
admission to the press gallery, and other per-
sons on request of a Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner by card or in writing, may
be admitted to the Hall of the House.
47). It was adopted initially in 1902 (V, 7346).
[382]
4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident

§ 680. Former Commissioner; a former Parliamen-
Members and officers.
tarian of the House; or a former
elected officer of the House or former minority
employee nominated as an elected officer of the
House shall not be entitled to the privilege of
admission to the Hall of the House and rooms
leading thereto if such individual—
(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a for-
eign principal as those terms are defined in
clause 5 of rule XXV;
(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary in-
terest in any legislative measure pending be-
fore the House or reported by a committee; or
(3) is in the employ of or represents any
party or organization for the purpose of influ-
encing, directly or indirectly, the passage, de-
feat, or amendment of any legislative proposal.
(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations
to carry out this rule including regulations that
exempt ceremonial or educational functions from
the restrictions of this clause.
47). It was adopted initially in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 1435, Oct. 1,
1976, pp. 35175–80) to consolidate in one place and to clarify the restric-
tions on admittance to the floor of former Members, officers, and employees
and to give the Speaker the power to promulgate regulations to enforce
the rule. The form of the rule adopted during the 109th Congress estab-
lished plainer proscriptions with respect to registered lobbyists, agents of
foreign principals, and persons with similar representational roles and
specified particular exercises of regulatory authority by the Speaker (H.
Res. 648, Feb. 1, 2006, p. 540). The 111th Congress clarified the authority
of the Speaker over the entire rule and not merely the exemptions specified
in paragraph (b), and eliminated a gender-based reference (secs. 2(l), 2
(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
[383]
As early as 1945 the Chair held that former Members do not have the
privilege of the floor when they are personally interested in legislation
(Speaker Rayburn, Oct. 2, 1945, p. 9251). Pursuant to the authority granted
by this clause, Speakers have issued regulations from time to time (Speaker
O’Neill, Jan. 6, 1977, p. 321; Speaker Foley, June 9, 1994, p. 12387; Speaker
Gingrich, May 24, 1995, p. 14300; Speaker Gingrich, Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031;
Speaker Hastert, Feb. 1, 2006, p. 644; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 5, 2007, p.
273).
A former Member has not been entitled to the privileges of the floor
under this clause if (1) having a direct personal or pecuniary interest in
legislation under consideration in the House or reported by any committee,
or (2) representing any party or organization for the purpose of influencing
the disposition of legislation pending before the House, reported by any
committee or under consideration in any committee or subcommittee (June
7, 1978, p. 16625). The essence of the rule has been the former Member’s
status as one with a personal or pecuniary interest and not whether the
former Member may have a present intent to lobby (Speaker Foley, June
9, 1994, p. 12387). Even before the adoption of a more categorical form
of the rule during the 109th Congress, intent to lobby was assumed if
a former Member was employed or retained as a lobbyist to influence legis-
lative measures as described in (2) above (Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031). The
Speaker has emphasized that the rule applies not only to the floor but
also to ‘‘rooms leading thereto,’’ and has construed the latter phrase to
include, for example, the Speaker’s Lobby and the cloakrooms (Speaker
Gingrich, May 24, 1995, p. 14300; Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031) and the Rayburn
Room (Feb. 1, 2006, p. 541).
A former Member must observe the rules of proper decorum while on
the floor, and the Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the
Chair in maintaining such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, pp. 19026, 19027).
A former Member may not manifest approval or disapproval of the pro-
ceedings (VIII, 3635). In the 105th Congress the House adopted a resolution
offered as a question of the privileges of the House alleging indecorous
behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban
the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the
resolution of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept.
18, 1997, p. 19340).
5. A person from the staff of a Member, Dele-

gate, or Resident Commissioner
§ 681. Members’ staff.
may be admitted to the Hall of the

House or rooms leading thereto under clause 2
only upon prior notice to the Speaker. Such per-
sons, and persons from the staff of committees
admitted under clause 2, may not engage in ef-
[384]
forts in the Hall of the House or rooms leading

thereto to influence Members with regard to the
legislation being amended. Such persons shall
remain at the desk and are admitted only to ad-
vise the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, or committee responsible for their admis-
sion. A person who violates this clause may be
excluded during the session from the Hall of the
House and rooms leading thereto by the Speak-
er.
47). This clause was added initially in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53–70) to extend the privilege of the floor to one person from
the staff of a Member having an amendment under consideration but not
of a measure’s sponsor or during special-order speeches. The Speaker pro-
mulgated regulations for the implementation of this clause on January
26, 1977 (p. 2333). In the 97th Congress the Speaker announced that per-
sonal staff of Members did not have the privilege of the floor and that
committee staff, permitted on the floor when business from their commit-
tees is under consideration, were required to remain unobtrusively by the
committee tables (Aug. 18, 1982, p. 21934). Staff permitted on the floor
under this clause are not permitted to distribute literature or otherwise
attempt to influence Members in their votes (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21519; Sept.
27, 1995, p. 26567) and may not applaud during debate (June 14, 1995,
p. 15896).
Gallery
6. (a) The Speaker shall set aside a portion of
§ 682. The various the west gallery for the use of the
galleries and
admission thereto. President, the members of the Cabi-
net, justices of the Supreme Court,
foreign ministers and suites, and the members
of their respective families. The Speaker shall
set aside another portion of the same gallery for
the accommodation of persons to be admitted on
the cards of Members, Delegates, or the Resi-
dent Commissioner.
[385]
(b) The Speaker shall set aside the southerly

half of the east gallery for the use of the families
of Members of Congress. The Speaker shall con-
trol one bench. On the request of a Member, Del-
egate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator, the
Speaker shall issue a card of admission to the
family of such individual, which may include
their visitors. No other person shall be admitted
to this section.
was found in former rule XXXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was
adopted initially in 1880 (V, 7302) and renumbered January 3, 1953 (p.
24). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
On special occasions the House sometimes makes a special rule for ad-
mission to the galleries (V, 7303), as on the occasion of the electoral count
(III, 1961), of an address by the President, and of public funerals.
Prohibition on campaign contributions

7. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
§ 683. Prohibition on sioner, officer, or employee of the
distribution of
campaign House, or any other person entitled
contributions.
to admission to the Hall of the
House or rooms leading thereto by this rule,
may not knowingly distribute a political cam-
paign contribution in the Hall of the House or
rooms leading thereto.
was found in former clause 5 of rule XXXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). It was adopted initially in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121).
[386]
Rule V § 684
RULE V
BROADCASTING THE HOUSE
1. The Speaker shall administer, direct, and

§ 684. Broadcasting of control a system for closed-circuit
House proceedings.
viewing of floor proceedings of the
House in the offices of all Members, Delegates,
the Resident Commissioner, and committees and
in such other places in the Capitol and the
House Office Buildings as the Speaker considers
appropriate. Such system may include other
telecommunications functions as the Speaker
considers appropriate. Any such telecommuni-
cations shall be subject to rules and regulations
issued by the Speaker.
2. (a) The Speaker shall administer, direct,
and control a system for complete and unedited
audio and visual broadcasting and recording of
the proceedings of the House. The Speaker shall
provide for the distribution of such broadcasts
and recordings to news media, for the storage of
audio and video recordings of the proceedings,
and for the closed-captioning of the proceedings
for hearing-impaired persons.
(b) All television and radio broadcasting sta-
tions, networks, services, and systems (including
cable systems) that are accredited to the House
Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries,
and all radio and television correspondents who
are so accredited, shall be provided access to the
live coverage of the House.
(c) Coverage made available under this clause,
including any recording thereof—
[387]
§ 684 Rule V
(1) may not be used for any political pur-

pose;
(2) may not be used in any commercial ad-
vertisement; and
(3) may not be broadcast with commercial
sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news
program or public affairs documentary pro-
gram.
3. The Speaker may delegate any of the re-
sponsibilities under this rule to such legislative
entity as the Speaker considers appropriate.
It was adopted initially in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979,
p. 7). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). The requirement that televised broad-
casts of proceedings of the House be closed captioned for hearing-impaired
individuals was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p.
72). The authority of the Speaker to make rules governing telecommuni-
cations functions within the House was added in the 102d Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).
In the 95th Congress the House considered as a question of the privileges
of the House and adopted a resolution directing the Committee on Rules
to investigate the impact on the safety, dignity, and integrity of House
proceedings, of a test authorized by the Speaker under the Speaker’s gen-
eral control over the Hall of the House for the audiovisual broadcast of
House proceedings within the Capitol and House Office Buildings (H. Res.
404, Mar. 15, 1977, p. 7608). The resolution directed the Committee on
Rules to report to the House at the earliest practicable date its findings
and recommendations, including whether such coverage should be made
available to the public. The committee reported and the House adopted
another resolution that: (1) authorized the Speaker to establish a closed-
circuit system for in-House broadcasting of House proceedings; (2) directed
the Committee on Rules to study methods for providing complete audio
and visual broadcasting of House proceedings and to report to the House
thereon; and (3) directed the Speaker after receipt of the committee’s report
to establish a system subject to his direction and control for audio and
visual broadcast and recording of House proceedings and to provide for
distribution and access to the news media (H. Res. 866, Oct. 27, 1977,
pp. 35425–37). The Speaker, after receipt of that report (H. Rept. 95–881,
Feb. 15, 1978), directed implementation of full audio coverage, with dis-
tribution to the media, on June 8, 1978 (p. 16746). Public Law 95–391
[388]
Rule VI, clause 1 § 685
(Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1979) contained the following pro-

viso: ‘‘No funds in this bill may be used to implement a system for televising
and broadcasting the proceedings of the House pursuant to House Resolu-
tion 866, Ninety-Fifth Congress, under which the TV cameras in the Cham-
ber purchased by the House are controlled and operated by persons not
in the employ of the House.’’
Pursuant to this rule, the Speaker directed the Clerk in the 98th Con-
gress to immediately implement periodic wide-angle television coverage
of all ‘‘special-order’’ speeches at the end of legislative business (with cap-
tions at the bottom of the screen indicating that legislative business has
been completed) (May 10, 1984, p. 11894) but not during ‘‘interim’’ special
orders (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38106). However, in the 103d and 104th Con-
gresses, the Speaker prohibited wide-angle coverage but continued the cap-
tion at the bottom of the screen not only during special-order speeches
but also during morning-hour debate (Speaker Foley, Feb. 11, 1994, p.
2244; Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 99th Congress, the
House adopted a resolution, raised as a question of the privileges of the
House, authorizing and directing the Speaker to provide for the audio and
visual broadcast coverage of the Chamber while Members are voting (H.
Res. 150, Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821). Although paragraph (a) requires complete
and unedited broadcast coverage of House proceedings, the House held
(by tabling an appeal of a ruling of the Chair) that it does not require
in-House microphone amplification of disorderly conduct by a Member fol-
lowing expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081).
RULE VI
OFFICIAL REPORTERS AND NEWS MEDIA GALLERIES
Official reporters
1. Subject to the direction and control of the
§ 685. Reporters of Speaker, the Clerk shall appoint,
debates and
committee and may remove for cause, the offi-
stenographers.
cial reporters of the House, includ-
ing stenographers of committees, and shall su-
pervise the execution of their duties.
was found in former clause 1 of rule XXXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). From 1874 until March 1, 1978, the appointment and removal of the
official reporters, and the manner of the execution of their duties, was
vested in the Speaker (V, 6958); effective March 1, 1978 (H. Res. 959,
Jan. 23, 1978, p. 431) those responsibilities were vested in the Clerk, sub-
ject to the direction and control of the Speaker.
[389]
§ 686 Rule VI, clause 1
The reporters of debates have played an important role in the evolution

of the system by which the House compiles a daily verbatim report of its
proceedings, made by its own corps of reporters (V, 6959). Since these re-
porters have become officers of the House a correction of the Congressional
Record has been held a question of privilege (V, 7014–7016).
The arrangement, style, etc., of the Congressional Record is prescribed
§ 686. Rules relating to
by the Joint Committee on Printing pursuant to 44
Congressional Record. U.S.C. 901, 904 (see also VIII, 3500). The rules of the
Joint Committee on Printing governing publication of
the Congressional Record are as follows:
1. Arrangement of the daily Congressional Record.—The Public Printer
shall arrange the contents of the daily Congressional Record as follows:
The Senate proceedings shall alternate with the House proceedings in order
of placement in consecutive issues insofar as such an arrangement is fea-
sible, and Extensions of Remarks and Daily Digest shall follow: Provided,
That the makeup of the Congressional Record shall proceed without regard
to alternation whenever the Public Printer deems it necessary in order
to meet production and delivery schedules.
2. Type and style.—The Public Printer shall print the report of the pro-
ceedings and debates of the Senate and House of Representatives, as fur-
nished by the official reporters of the Congressional Record, in 8-point
type; and all matter included in the remarks or speeches of Members of
Congress, other than their own words, and all reports, documents, and
other matter authorized to be inserted in the Congressional Record shall
be printed in 7-point type; and all roll calls shall be printed in 6-point
type. No italic or black type nor words in capitals or small capitals shall
be used for emphasis or prominence; nor will unusual indentions be per-
mitted. These restrictions do not apply to the printing of or quotations
from historical, official, or legal documents or papers of which a literal
reproduction is necessary.
3. Only as an aid in distinguishing the manner of delivery in order to
contribute to the historical accuracy of the Record, statements or insertions
in the Record where no part of them was spoken will be preceded and
followed by a ‘‘bullet’’ symbol, i.e., ∑ (now applicable only in Senate).
4. Return of manuscript.—When manuscript is submitted to Members
for revision it should be returned to the Government Printing Office not
later than 9 o’clock p.m. in order to insure publication in the Congressional
Record issued on the following morning; and if all of the manuscript is
not furnished at the time specified, the Public Printer is authorized to
withhold it from the Congressional Record for 1 day. In no case will a
speech be printed in the Congressional Record of the day of its delivery
if the manuscript is furnished later than 12 o’clock midnight.
5. Tabular matter.—The manuscript of speeches containing tabular
statements to be published in the Congressional Record shall be in the
hands of the Public Printer not later than 7 o’clock p.m. to insure publica-
tion the following morning. When possible, manuscript copy for tabular
[390]
matter should be sent to the Government Printing Office 2 or more days

in advance of the date of publication in the Congressional Record. Proof
will be furnished promptly to the Member of Congress to be submitted
by him instead of manuscript copy when he offers it for publication in
the Congressional Record.
6. Proof furnished.—Proofs or ‘‘leave to print’’ and advance speeches will
not be furnished the day the manuscript is received but will be submitted
the following day, whenever possible to do so without causing delay in
the publication of the regular proceedings of Congress. Advance speeches
shall be set in the Congressional Record style of type, and not more than
six sets of proofs may be furnished to Members without charge.
7. Notation of withheld remarks.—If manuscript or proofs have not been
returned in time for publication in the proceedings, the Public Printer will
insert the words ‘‘Mr. ll addressed the Senate (House or Committee).
His remarks will appear hereafter in Extensions of Remarks’’ and proceed
with the printing of the Congressional Record.
8. Thirty-day limit.—The Public Printer shall not publish in the Congres-
sional Record any speech or extension of remarks which has been withheld
for a period exceeding 30 calendar days from the date when its printing
was authorized: Provided, That at the expiration of each session of Con-
gress the time limit herein fixed shall be 10 days, unless otherwise ordered
by the committee.
9. Corrections.—The permanent Congressional Record is made up for
printing and binding 30 days after each daily publication is issued; there-
fore all corrections must be sent to the Public Printer within that time:
Provided, That upon the final adjournment of each session of Congress
the time limit shall be 10 days, unless otherwise ordered by the committee:
Provided further, That no Member of Congress shall be entitled to make
more than one revision. Any revision shall consist only of corrections of
the original copy and shall not include deletions of correct material, substi-
tutions for correct material, or additions of new subject matter.
10. The Public Printer shall not publish in the Congressional Record
the full report or print of any committee or subcommittee when the report
or print has been previously printed. This rule shall not be construed to
apply to conference reports. However, inasmuch as rule XXII (§ 1082, infra)
provides that conference reports be printed in the daily edition of the Con-
gressional Record, they shall not be printed therein a second time.
11. Makeup of the Extensions of Remarks.—Extensions of Remarks in
the Congressional Record shall be made up by successively taking first
an extension from the copy submitted by the official reporters of one House
and then an extension from the copy of the other House, so that Senate
and House extensions appear alternately as far as possible. The sequence
for each House shall follow as closely as possible the order or arrangement
in which the copy comes from the official reporters of the respective Houses.
The official reporters of each House shall designate and distinctly mark
the lead item among their extensions. When both Houses are in session
[391]
and submit extensions, the lead item shall be changed from one House
to the other in alternate issues, with the indicated lead item of the other
House appearing in second place. When only one House is in session, the
lead item shall be an extension submitted by a Member of the House in
session. This rule shall not apply to Congressional Records printed after
the sine die adjournment of the Congress.
12. Official reporters.—The official reporters of each House shall indicate
on the manuscript and prepare headings for all matter to be printed in
Extensions of Remarks and shall make suitable reference thereto at the
proper place in the proceedings.
13. Two-page rule—Cost estimate from Public Printer.—(1) No
extraneous matter in excess of two printed Record pages, whether printed
in its entirety in one daily issue or in two or more parts in one or more
issues, shall be printed in the Congressional Record unless the Member
announces, coincident with the request for leave to print or extend, the
estimate in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of pub-
lishing the same. (2) No extraneous matter shall be printed in the House
proceedings or the Senate proceedings, with the following exceptions: (a)
Excerpts from letters, telegrams, or articles presented in connection with
a speech delivered in the course of debate; (b) communications from State
legislatures; (c) addresses or articles by the President and the Members
of his Cabinet, the Vice President, or a Member of Congress. (3) The official
reporters of the House or Senate or the Public Printer shall return to the
Member of the respective House any matter submitted for the Congres-
sional Record which is in contravention of these provisions.
HOUSE SUPPLEMENT TO ‘‘LAWS AND RULES FOR PUBLICATION OF THE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD’’—EFFECTIVE AUGUST 12, 1986
1. Extensions of Remarks in the daily Congressional Record.—When the

House has granted leave to print (1) a newspaper or magazine article,
or (2) any other matter not germane to the proceedings, it shall be pub-
lished under Extensions of Remarks. This rule shall not apply to quotations
which form part of a speech of a Member, or to an authorized extension
of his own remarks: Provided, That no address, speech, or article delivered
or released subsequently to the sine die adjournment of a session of Con-
gress may be printed in the Congressional Record. One-minute speeches
delivered during the morning business of Congress shall not exceed 300
words. Statements exceeding this will be printed following the business
of the day.
2. Any extraneous matter included in any statement by a Member, either
under the 1-minute rule or permission granted to extend at this point,
will be printed in the ‘‘Extensions of Remarks’’ section, and that such mate-
rial will be duly noted in the Member’s statement as appearing therein.
3. Under the general leave request by the floor manager of specific legis-
lation only matter pertaining to such legislation will be included as per
[392]
the request. This, of course, will include tables and charts pertinent to
the same, but not newspaper clippings and editorials.
4. In the makeup of the portion of the Record entitled ‘‘Extensions of
Remarks,’’ the Public Printer shall withhold any Extensions of Remarks
which exceed economical press fill or exceed production limitations. Exten-
sions withheld for such reasons will be printed in succeeding issues, at
the direction of the Public Printer, so that more uniform daily issues may
be the end result and, in this way, when both Houses have a short session
the makeup would be in a sense made easier so as to comply with daily
proceedings, which might run extremely heavy at times.
5. The request for a Member to extend his or her remarks in the body
of the Record must be granted to the individual whose remarks are to
be inserted.
6. All statements for ‘‘Extensions of Remarks,’’ as well as copy for the
body of the Congressional Record must be submitted on the Floor of the
House to the Official Reporters of Debates and must carry the actual signa-
ture of the Member. Extensions of Remarks will be accepted up to 15 min-
utes after adjournment of the House. To insure printing in that day’s pro-
ceedings, debate transcripts still out for revision must be returned to the
Office of Official Reporters of Debates, Room HT–60, the Capitol, (1) by
5 p.m., or 2 hours following adjournment, whichever occurs later; or (2)
within 30 minutes following adjournment when the House adjourns at 11
p.m., or later.
7. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVII of the Rules of the House, the Con-
gressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of remarks
made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to technical, gram-
matical, and typographical corrections authorized by the Member making
the remarks involved. Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by
permission or order of the House. Consistent with rule 9 of the Joint Com-
mittee on Printing Rules, any revision shall consist only of technical, gram-
matical, or typographical corrections of the original copy and shall not
include deletions of correct material, substitutions for correct material, or
additions of new subject matter. By obtaining unanimous consent to revise
and extend, a Member will be able to relax the otherwise strict prohibition
contained in clause 8 of rule XVII only in two respects: (1) to revise by
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections; and (2) to extend
remarks in a distinctive type style to follow the remarks actually uttered.
In no event would the actually uttered remarks be removable.
The requirement of rule 7 of the supplemental rules that the Congres-
sional Record be a substantially verbatim account of
§ 687. Substantially
verbatim account. remarks actually rendered was included in clause 8(a)
of rule XVII (formerly clause 9 of rule XIV) in the 104th
Congress, with the prescription that that rule constitute a standard of
conduct under former clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(B)
of rule X) (sec. 213, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Under clause 8 of
rule XVII, remarks actually delivered may not be deleted and remarks
[393]
inserted must appear in distinctive type (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). The Speaker
has instructed the Official Reporters of Debates to adhere strictly to the
requirement of rule 7 of the supplemental rules (Mar. 2, 1988, p. 2963;
Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1980).
Words spoken by a Member not under recognition are not included in
the Congressional Record (V, 6975–6978; VIII, 3466, 3471) and a Member
should not expect the official reporters to transcribe such remarks (Jan.
24, 2011, p. l). For example the Record does not include remarks uttered:
(1) after a Member has been called to order (July 29, 1994, p. 18609);
(2) when a Member fails to heed the gavel at the expiration of time for
debate (May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950); (3) when a Member
interrupts another during debate without being yielded or otherwise recog-
nized (as on a point of order) (Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229).
Remarks held irrelevant by the Chair may be removed from the Record
by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3663).
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that when
the Pledge of Allegiance is delivered as the third element of the daily order
of business, the Record reflects the pledge in its statutory form (Apr. 27,
2004, pp. 7588, 7600). The Chair announced the Record-printing policy
regarding remarks in debate uttered in languages other than English, to
deny transcription in the foreign language (unless a transcript is provided
in a language that the Government Printing Office can print) and to require
Members to submit translations for distinctive printing in the Record in
English as a revision of remarks (Mar. 4, 1998, p. 2535; see also Feb.
25, 2003, p. 4402).
Under long practice and applicable precedents and guidelines, the Chair
has refined rulings on points of order in the Record in order to clarify
them without changing their substance, including those sustained by the
House on appeal (Feb. 19, 1992, p. 2461; see H. Res. 230, 99th Cong.,
July 31, 1985, p. 21783, and H. Rept. 99–228). In accordance with existing
accepted practices, the Speaker customarily made such technical or par-
liamentary corrections or insertions in the transcript of a ruling or state-
ment by the Chair as may have been necessary to conform to rule, custom,
or precedent (see H. Res. 330, 101st Cong., Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515, and
report of House Administration task force on Record inserted by Speaker
Foley, Oct. 27, 1990, p. 37124). In the 104th Congress the Speaker ruled
that the requirement of clause 8 of rule XVII (formerly clause 9 of rule
XIV) that the Record be a substantially verbatim account of remarks made
during House proceedings extended to statements and rulings of the Chair
(Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866).
The Congressional Record is for the proceedings of the House and Senate
only, and matters not connected therewith are rigidly excluded (V, 6962).
It is not, however, the official record, that function being fulfilled by the
Journal (IV, 2727). Because the Record is maintained as a substantially
verbatim account of the proceedings of the House (44 U.S.C. 901), the
Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to give a special-
[394]
Rule VI, clause 1 § 688–§ 689
order speech ‘‘off the Record’’ (June 24, 1992, p. 16131). As a general prin-
ciple the Speaker has no control over the Record (V, 6984, 7017).
The traditional practice to allow Members, with the approval of the
House and under conditions set forth by the Joint Committee on Printing,
to revise remarks before publication in the Congressional Record (V, 6971,
7024; VIII, 3500) should be interpreted in light of clause 8 of rule XVII
and rule 7 of the supplemental rules of the Joint Committee on Printing,
which require the Record to be a substantially verbatim account of remarks
made during House proceedings (see § 686, supra, and §§ 967, 968, infra).
In any event, a Member should not change the notes of the Member’s own
speech in such a way as to affect the remarks of another without bringing
the correction to the attention of that Member (V, 6972; VIII, 3461) because
such alterations require authorization by the House (VIII, 3463, 3497).
Where a Member so revised his remarks as to affect the import of words
uttered by another Member, the House corrected the Record (V, 6973).
A Member is not entitled to inspect the reporter’s notes of remarks that
do not contain reflections on that Member, delivered by another Member
and withheld for revision (V, 6964).
As a general rule the Committee of the Whole has no control over the
Congressional Record (V, 6986); but the chairman in
Committee of the the preservation of order may direct the exclusion of
Whole to the disorderly words spoken by a Member after a call to
Congressional Record. order (V, 6987). In a case wherein a letter read in Com-
mittee involved a breach of privilege, the Committee

reported the matter to the House for action, and the House struck the
letter from the Record (V, 6986). The chair of the Committee of the Whole
does not determine the privileges of a Member under a general leave to
print in the Record, that being for the House alone (V, 6988). The Com-
mittee of the Whole may neither grant a general leave to print, although
for convenience it does permit individual Members to extend their remarks
(V, 7009, 7010; VIII, 3488–3490; Aug. 31, 1965, p. 22385), nor permit the
inclusion of extraneous material (Jan. 23, 1936, p. 950; Feb. 1, 1937, p.
656; Sept. 19, 1967, p. 26032).
Although the House controls the Congressional Record, the Speaker with
§ 689. Correction of
the assent of the House laid down the principle that
the Congressional words spoken by a Member in order might not be
Record. changed by the House, because this would be deter-
mining what a Member should utter on the floor (V,
6974; VI, 583; VIII, 3469, 3498). Neither should one House strike matter
placed in the Record by permission of the other House (V, 6966). But the
House may correct the speech of one of its Members so that it may record
faithfully what was actually said (V, 6972). Similarly, a motion to correct
the Record has been entertained to allow a Member to print in subsequent
edition of the daily Record the correct text of an amendment offered on
a previous day and that had been substantially misprinted in the daily
Record for the day on which it was offered (Deschler, ch. 5, § 18.6). In
[395]
addition, privileged motions have been permitted to correct the Record

as follows: (1) striking unparliamentary words inserted in the Record
(Deschler, ch. 5, § 17); (2) correcting the Record where the remarks of one
Member have been attributed to another (Deschler, ch. 5, §§ 18.1, 18.2);
(3) correcting the Record where a Member has improperly altered his re-
marks during an exchange of colloquy with another Member (Deschler,
ch. 5, § 18.9). Mere typographical errors in the Record or ordinary revisions
of a Member’s remarks do not give rise to privileged motions for the correc-
tion of the Record (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9419), because such changes for the
permanent edition of the Record may be made without the permission of
the House (Deschler, ch. 5, § 19) (subject to clause 8 of rule XVII). The
House does not change the Record merely to show what a Member should
have said during debate (Deschler, ch. 5, § 18).
Furthermore, the Speaker declines to entertain unanimous-consent re-
quests to correct the Record on a vote taken by electronic device, based
upon the presumed accuracy of the electronic system and the ability and
responsibility of each Member to verify votes (Feb. 6, 1973, p. 3558; Apr.
18, 1973, p. 13081; Dec. 3, 1974, p. 37897). It also has been held that
a Member may not, in a controversy over a proposed correction of the
Record as to a matter of business, demand as a matter of right the reading
of the reporter’s notes (V, 6967; VIII, 3460).
The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record con-
stitute questions of the privileges of the House (see § 704, infra). Subject
to the requirements of rule IX, a motion or resolution for the correction
of the Record that involves a question of privilege may be made properly
after the reading and approval of the Journal (V, 7013; VIII, 3496), is
not in order pending the approval of the Journal (V, 6989), and may not
be raised until the Record has appeared (V, 7020). A correction of the
Record that involves a motion and a vote is recorded in the Journal (IV,
2877). A resolution directing the placement of an asterisk in the Record
to note alleged inaccuracies in a State of the Union address (but not alleg-
ing improper transcription of that address) was held not to constitute a
question of privilege (Oct. 20, 2003, pp. 25255, 25256). Propositions to make
corrections are sometimes considered by the Committee on House Adminis-
tration.
Where a Member had uttered disorderly words on the floor without chal-
§ 690.
lenge, the House decided that it was not precluded from
Unparliamentary action when the words, after being withheld for revi-
remarks and the sion, appeared in the Record, and struck them (V, 6979,
Congressional Record. 6981; VI, 582; VIII, 2538, 3463, 3472). The House also
has ordered stricken printed speeches condemned as

unparliamentary for reflections on Members, committees of the House, the
House itself (V, 7017), and the Senate (V, 5129). In the 101st Congress
a resolution presented as a question of privilege was adopted to direct
the Committee on House Administration to report with respect to certain
unauthorized deletions from the Record. A task force of that committee
[396]
recommended that deletion of unparliamentary remarks be permitted only

by consent of the House and not by the Member uttering the words under
authority to revise and extend (Oct. 27, 1990, p. 37124). That recommenda-
tion has been incorporated into the Rules of the House (clause 8(b) of rule
XVII). In debating a resolution to strike from the Record disorderly lan-
guage a Member may not read the language (V, 7004); but it was held
that as part of a personal explanation relating to matter excluded as out
of order a Member might read the matter, subject to a point of order if
the reading should develop anything in violation of the rules of debate
(V, 5079). A resolution to omit from the Record certain remarks merely
declared by the Member offering the resolution to be out of order is not
privileged (V, 7021). A motion to strike unparliamentary words from the
Record is privileged (see § 961, infra), although a question of privilege may
not subsequently arise therefrom (V, 7023; VI, 596).
The practice of inserting in the Congressional Record speeches not actu-
§ 692. ‘‘Leave to print’’
ally delivered on the floor has developed by consent of
in the Congressional the House as the membership has increased and it has
Record. become difficult at times for every Member to fully de-
bate public questions on the floor (V, 6990–6996, 6998–
7000). The House, in granting such leave to print, stipulates that it be
exercised without unreasonable freedom (V, 7002, 7003). For example: (1)
a Member with permission to insert one matter may not insert another
(V, 7001; VIII, 3462, 3479, 3480); (2) a Member may not insert statements
and letters of others unless the leave granted specifies such matter as
extraneous (VIII, 3475, 3481), whether the extension be under general
leave for all Members or individual; (3) a Member may not insert that
which would not have been in order if uttered on the floor, and the House
may exclude such insertion in whole or in part (V, 7004–7008; VIII, 3495;
Oct. 2, 1992, p. 30709; Sept. 27, 1996, p. 25633); (4) a Member may not
insert the individual votes of Members on a question of which the yeas
and nays have not been entered on the Journal (V, 6982). The principle
that a Member shall not be called to order for words spoken in debate
if business has intervened does not apply to a case where leave to print
has been violated (V, 7005). Neither the House nor the Committee of the
Whole may permit the insertion of an entire colloquy between two or more
Members not actually delivered (Aug. 10, 1982, pp. 20266, 20267; Oct.
3, 1985, p. 26028; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37133). This prohibition does not apply
to the insertion of remarks spoken in debate in the Senate in the form
of a colloquy (Mar. 7, 2006, p. 2791) given the form of clause 1 of rule
XVII as adopted in the 109th Congress.
The House, and not the Speaker, determines what liberty shall be al-
lowed to a Member who has leave to extend remarks (V, 6997–7000; VIII,
3475), whether or not a copyrighted article shall be printed therein (V,
6985), as to an alleged abuse of the leave to print (V, 7012; VIII, 3474),
or as to a proposed amendment (V, 6983). General leave to print may be
granted only by the House, although in the Committee of the Whole a
[397]
Member, by unanimous consent, may be given leave to extend remarks

(V, 7009, 7010; VIII, 3488–3490), though such leave should be granted
only in connection with remarks actually delivered and relevant to the
bill; and the extension under such circumstances should be brief (Speaker
Longworth, Mar. 18, 1926, p. 5854).
Where a Member abused a leave to print on the last day of the session,
the House at the next session condemned the abuse and declared the mat-
ter not a legitimate part of the official debates (V, 7017). An abuse of leave
to print gives rise to a question of privilege (V, 7005–7008, 7011; VIII,
3163, 3491, 3495), and a resolution or motion to expunge from the Record
in such a case is offered as a question of privilege (V, 7012; VIII, 3475,
3491). An inquiry by the House as to an alleged abuse of the leave to
print does not necessarily entitle the Member implicated to the floor on
a question of privilege (V, 7012). Clause 8 of rule XVII (formerly clause
9 of rule XIV) requires substantive remarks inserted under leave to revise
and extend to be printed in distinctive type and precludes deletion under
such permission of words actually uttered (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541).
A motion that a Member be permitted to extend remarks in the Record
is not privileged (Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1661), and under the rules of the Joint
Committee on Printing, one Member cannot obtain permission for other
individual Members to extend their remarks (rule 5 of House Supplement,
§ 686, supra).
Where extraneous material proposed to be inserted in the body or in
the Extension of Remarks portion of the Record exceeds two Record pages,
the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing require that the Member
state an estimate of printing cost when permission is requested to make
the insertion (Feb. 12, 1962, p. 2207; May 24, 1972, p. 18653). It is the
Member’s responsibility and not that of the Chair to ascertain the cost
of printing extraneous material and obtaining consent of the House when
necessary (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2245). As indicated in supplemental rule 3
of the Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record, the
general leave request of the floor manager permits matter pertaining to
specific legislation, including tables and charts but not newspaper clippings
and editorials. The Clerk normally does not require a cost estimate for
charts and tables admitted under general leave that exceed two Record
pages.
The Joint Committee on Printing amended the rules for publication of
the Record, effective March 1, 1978, to require the identification by ‘‘bullet’’
symbols of statements or insertions no part of which were actually deliv-
ered in debate (Feb. 20, 1978, p. 3676). Where the House permitted all
Members leave to revise and extend their remarks on a certain subject,
those Members who actually spoke during the debate could revise their
remarks to appear as if actually delivered, but Members’ statements no
part of which were spoken were preceded and followed by a ‘‘bullet’’ symbol
(Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32729). In the 99th Congress, the House adopted a resolu-
tion requesting the Joint Committee on Printing to adopt temporary rules
[398]
to require distinctive type styles rather than bulleting of remarks not actu-
ally spoken in debate (H. Res. 230, July 31, 1985, p. 21783), and also adopt-
ed a resolution requesting that those rules be made permanent (H. Res.
514, Aug. 12, 1986, p. 20980). Under regulations of the Joint Committee
on Printing, remarks delivered or inserted under leave to revise and extend
in connection with a ‘‘one-minute speech’’ made before legislative business
are printed after legislative business if exceeding 300 words (Speaker
O’Neill, Apr. 5, 1978, p. 8846; § 686, supra).
Based upon several unauthorized insertions of extensions of remarks
in the Record, the Speaker announced that henceforth all extensions of
remarks must be signed by the Member submitting them (Aug. 15, 1974,
p. 28385). The House by unanimous consent may grant permission for
all Members to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material
within the established limits in that section of the Congressional Record
entitled ‘‘Extensions of Remarks’’ for a session (e.g., Jan. 6, 1999, p. 247)
or a Congress (e.g., Jan. 4, 2007, p. 42).
News media galleries

2. A portion of the gallery over the Speaker’s
§ 693. Unofficial chair, as may be necessary to ac-
reporters in the press
gallery and on the commodate representatives of the
floor.
press wishing to report debates and
proceedings, shall be set aside for their use. Rep-
utable reporters and correspondents shall be ad-
mitted thereto under such regulations as the
Speaker may prescribe from time to time. The
Standing Committee of Correspondents for the
Press Gallery, and the Executive Committee of
Correspondents for the Periodical Press Gallery,
shall supervise such galleries, including the des-
ignation of its employees, subject to the direction
and control of the Speaker. The Speaker may
admit to the floor, under such regulations as the
Speaker may prescribe, not more than one rep-
resentative of each press association.
was found in former clause 2 of rule XXXIV. When it was transferred
to this clause, it also was amended to reflect the existing practice of includ-
ing the Periodical Press Gallery under the ambit of the rule (H. Res. 5,
[399]
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This provision was first adopted in 1857 and has
been amended from time to time (V, 7304; VIII, 3642; Jan. 3, 1953, p.
24; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144; Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). A gender-based reference
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l). See also Consumers Union v. Periodical Correspondents’ Association,
515 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 1051 (1976) (action
in enforcing correspondents’ association regulations is within legislative
immunity granted by the Speech or Debate Clause).
3. A portion of the gallery as may be necessary

to accommodate reporters of news
§ 694. Unofficial
reporters in the radio
to be disseminated by radio, tele-
gallery and on the
floor.
vision, and similar means of trans-
mission, wishing to report debates and pro-
ceedings, shall be set aside for their use. Rep-
utable reporters and correspondents shall be ad-
mitted thereto under such regulations as the
Speaker may prescribe. The Executive Com-
mittee of the Radio and Television Correspond-
ents’ Galleries shall supervise such gallery, in-
cluding the designation of its employees, subject
to the direction and control of the Speaker. The
Speaker may admit to the floor, under such reg-
ulations as the Speaker may prescribe, not more
than one representative of each media outlet.
was found in former clause 3 of rule XXXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). This provision was first adopted on April 20, 1939 (p. 4561) and has
been amended from time to time (May 30, 1940, p. 7208; Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144; Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
[400]
Rule VII § 695
RULE VII
RECORDS OF THE HOUSE
Archiving
1. (a) At the end of each Congress, the chair
§ 695. Duties of Clerk of each committee shall transfer to
and committees as to
custody of papers the Clerk any noncurrent records of
before committees.
such committee, including the sub-
committees thereof.
(b) At the end of each Congress, each officer of
the House elected under rule II shall transfer to
the Clerk any noncurrent records made or ac-
quired in the course of the duties of such officer.
2. The Clerk shall deliver the records trans-
ferred under clause 1, together with any other
noncurrent records of the House, to the Archivist
of the United States for preservation at the Na-
tional Archives and Records Administration.
Records so delivered are the permanent property
of the House and remain subject to this rule and
any order of the House.
Public availability
3. (a) The Clerk shall authorize the Archivist
to make records delivered under clause 2 avail-
able for public use, subject to clause 4(b) and
any order of the House.
(b)(1) A record shall immediately be made
available if it was previously made available for
public use by the House or a committee or a sub-
committee.
(2) An investigative record that contains per-
sonal data relating to a specific living person
[401]
§ 695 Rule VII
(the disclosure of which would be an unwar-

ranted invasion of personal privacy), an adminis-
trative record relating to personnel, or a record
relating to a hearing that was closed under
clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI shall be made available
if it has been in existence for 50 years.
(3) A record for which a time, schedule, or con-
dition for availability is specified by order of the
House shall be made available in accordance
with that order. Except as otherwise provided by
order of the House, a record of a committee for
which a time, schedule, or condition for avail-
ability is specified by order of the committee (en-
tered during the Congress in which the record is
made or acquired by the committee) shall be
made available in accordance with the order of
the committee.
(4) A record (other than a record referred to in
subparagraph (1), (2), or (3)) shall be made
available if it has been in existence for 30 years.
4. (a) A record may not be made available for
public use under clause 3 if the Clerk deter-
mines that such availability would be detri-
mental to the public interest or inconsistent
with the rights and privileges of the House. The
Clerk shall notify in writing the chair and rank-
ing minority member of the Committee on House
Administration of any such determination.
(b) A determination of the Clerk under para-
graph (a) is subject to later orders of the House
and, in the case of a record of a committee, later
orders of the committee.
[402]
Rule VII § 695
5. (a) This rule does not supersede rule VIII or

clause 11 of rule X and does not authorize the
public disclosure of any record if such disclosure
is prohibited by law or executive order of the
President.
(b) The Committee on House Administration
may prescribe guidelines and regulations gov-
erning the applicability and implementation of
this rule.
(c) A committee may withdraw from the Na-
tional Archives and Records Administration any
record of the committee delivered to the Archi-
vist under this rule. Such a withdrawal shall be
on a temporary basis and for official use of the
committee.
Definition of record
6. In this rule the term ‘‘record’’ means any of-
ficial, permanent record of the House (other
than a record of an individual Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner), including—
(a) with respect to a committee, an official,
permanent record of the committee (including
any record of a legislative, oversight, or other
activity of such committee or a subcommittee
thereof); and
(b) with respect to an officer of the House
elected under rule II, an official, permanent
record made or acquired in the course of the
duties of such officer.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 1
through 6 were found in former rule XXXVI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). That rule was adopted initially in 1880 (V, 7260). Clause 2 (which
derived from section 140(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 812)) was added in the 83d Congress when the rule was also
[403]
§ 696 Rule VII
renumbered (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24). It was amended on January

22, 1971 (p. 144). It was again amended in the 99th Congress to change
the reference from the General Services Administration to the National
Archives and Records Administration (H. Res. 114, Oct. 14, 1986, p. 30821).
The rule was rewritten entirely in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1989, p. 73) to incorporate the provisions of H. Res. 419 as reported
from the Committee on Rules in the 100th Congress (H. Rept. 100–1054).
Clerical corrections were effected to reflect changes in the name of the
Committee on House Administration in the 104th and 106th Congresses
(sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). Clerical corrections were effected in the 107th Congress to correct
cross references (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Gender-based
references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. l).
The Clerk has historically been authorized to permit the Administrator
of General Services (now Archivist) to make available for use certain
records of the House transferred to the National Archives (H. Res. 288,
June 16, 1953, p. 6641). Under this rule, an order of the House is required
for the release of noncurrent records of the House not covered by clause
3 of this rule (Mar. 22, 1991, p. 7549).
Withdrawal of papers
7. A memorial or other paper presented to the
§ 696. Custody of House may not be withdrawn from
papers in the files of
the House. its files without its leave. If with-
drawn certified copies thereof shall
be left in the Office of the Clerk. When an act
passes for the settlement of a claim, the Clerk
may transmit to the officer charged with the set-
tlement thereof the papers on file in the Office
of the Clerk relating to such claim. The Clerk
may lend temporarily to an officer or bureau of
the executive departments any papers on file in
the Office of the Clerk relating to any matter
pending before such officer or bureau, taking
proper receipt therefor.
was found in former rule XXXVII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was
adopted initially in 1873 and amended in 1880 (V, 7256). It was renum-
[404]
Rule VIII § 697
bered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Gender-based references were eliminated

in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
The House usually allows the withdrawal of papers only in cases in which
there has been no adverse report. As the rules for the order of business
give no place to the motion to withdraw, it is made by unanimous consent
(V, 7259). The House formerly adopted a privileged resolution at the begin-
ning of each Congress authorizing the Clerk to furnish certified copies
of certain types of House papers subpoenaed by courts upon determination
of relevancy by the court, but not permitting production of executive session
papers or transfer of original papers (Jan. 3, 1973, p. 30).
See rule VIII for procedure for response to subpoenas for papers of the
House.
RULE VIII
RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS
1. When a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-

missioner, officer, or employee of
§ 697. Response to
subpoenas.
the House is properly served with a
judicial or administrative subpoena or judicial
order directing appearance as a witness relating
to the official functions of the House or for the
production or disclosure of any document relat-
ing to the official functions of the House, such
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, offi-
cer, or employee shall comply, consistently with
the privileges and rights of the House, with the
judicial or administrative subpoena or judicial
order as hereinafter provided, unless otherwise
determined under this rule.
2. Upon receipt of a properly served judicial or
administrative subpoena or judicial order de-
scribed in clause 1, a Member, Delegate, Resi-
dent Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House shall promptly notify the Speaker of its
receipt in writing. Such notification shall
promptly be laid before the House by the Speak-
[405]
§ 697 Rule VIII
er. During a period of recess or adjournment of

longer than three days, notification to the House
is not required until the reconvening of the
House, when the notification shall promptly be
laid before the House by the Speaker.
3. Once notification has been laid before the
House, the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House shall
determine whether the issuance of the judicial
or administrative subpoena or judicial order de-
scribed in clause 1 is a proper exercise of juris-
diction by the court, is material and relevant,
and is consistent with the privileges and rights
of the House. Such Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee shall notify
the Speaker before seeking judicial determina-
tion of these matters.
4. Upon determination whether a judicial or
administrative subpoena or judicial order de-
scribed in clause 1 is a proper exercise of juris-
diction by the court, is material and relevant,
and is consistent with the privileges and rights
of the House, the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House
shall immediately notify the Speaker of the de-
termination in writing.
5. The Speaker shall inform the House of a de-
termination whether a judicial or administrative
subpoena or judicial order described in clause 1
is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court,
is material and relevant, and is consistent with
the privileges and rights of the House. In so in-
forming the House, the Speaker shall generally
[406]
Rule VIII § 697
describe the records or information sought. Dur-

ing a period of recess or adjournment of longer
than three days, such notification is not required
until the reconvening of the House, when the no-
tification shall promptly be laid before the
House by the Speaker.
6. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) or
otherwise ordered by the House, upon notifica-
tion to the House that a judicial or administra-
tive subpoena or judicial order described in
clause 1 is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by
the court, is material and relevant, and is con-
sistent with the privileges and rights of the
House, the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
comply with the judicial or administrative sub-
poena or judicial order by supplying certified
copies.
(b) Under no circumstances may minutes or
transcripts of executive sessions, or evidence of
witnesses in respect thereto, be disclosed or cop-
ied. During a period of recess or adjournment of
longer than three days, the Speaker may author-
ize compliance or take such other action as the
Speaker considers appropriate under the cir-
cumstances. Upon the reconvening of the House,
all matters that transpired under this clause
shall promptly be laid before the House by the
Speaker.
7. A copy of this rule shall be transmitted by
the Clerk to the court when a judicial or admin-
istrative subpoena or judicial order described in
clause 1 is issued and served on a Member, Del-
[407]
§ 697 Rule VIII
egate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or em-

ployee of the House.
8. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to
deprive, condition, or waive the constitutional or
legal privileges or rights applicable or available
at any time to a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House,
or of the House itself, or the right of such Mem-
ber, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee, or of the House itself, to assert such
privileges or rights before a court in the United
States.
was found in former rule L (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was added
initially in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98). Until the
95th Congress, whenever a Member, officer, or employee received a sub-
poena, the House would adopt a resolution authorizing the person to re-
spond. In the 95th and 96th Congresses general authority was granted
to respond to subpoenas without the necessity of a House vote (H. Res.
10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 19). This standing
authority was clarified and revised later in the 96th Congress (H. Res.
722, Sept. 17, 1980, pp. 25777–90) and forms the basis for the present
rule. In the 107th Congress the rule was amended to broaden its applica-
tion to administrative subpoenas (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
In the 102d Congress the House considered as questions of the privileges
of the House resolutions: responding to a subpoena for records of the ‘‘bank’’
in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9753); responding
to a contemporaneous request for such records from a Special Counsel (Apr.
29, 1992, p. 9763); and authorizing an officer of the House to release certain
documents in response to another such request from the Special Counsel
(May 28, 1992, p. 12790). Under rule VIII as amended in the 107th Con-
gress, a Member or employee receiving such a subpoena informs the Speak-
er, as had been the practice under precedent (Deschler, ch. 11, § 14.8) before
the rule was amended (July 30, 1998, p. 18298; May 3, 1999, p. 8040).
Under clause 2, the Speaker promptly lays before the House a commu-
nication notifying the Speaker of the receipt of a subpoena, but the rule
does not require that the text of a subpoena be printed in the Record (July
31, 1992, p. 20602).
[408]
Rule IX § 698–§ 699
RULE IX
QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
1. Questions of privilege shall be, first, those

§ 698. Definition of affecting the rights of the House
questions of privilege.
collectively, its safety, dignity, and
the integrity of its proceedings; and second,
those affecting the rights, reputation, and con-
duct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner, individually, in their representa-
tive capacity only.
2. (a)(1) A resolution reported as a question of
§ 699. Precedence of the privileges of the House, or of-
fered from the floor by the Majority
Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of
the privileges of the House, or offered as privi-
leged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the
Constitution, shall have precedence of all other
questions except motions to adjourn. A resolu-
tion offered from the floor by a Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner other than the
Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a
question of the privileges of the House shall
have precedence of all other questions except
motions to adjourn only at a time or place, des-
ignated by the Speaker, in the legislative sched-
ule within two legislative days after the day on
which the proponent announces to the House an
intention to offer the resolution and the form of
the resolution. Oral announcement of the form of
the resolution may be dispensed with by unani-
mous consent.
[409]
§ 700–§ 701 Rule IX
(2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution

offered from the floor as a question of the privi-
leges of the House shall be equally divided be-
tween (A) the proponent of the resolution, and
(B) the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or
a designee, as determined by the Speaker.
(b) A question of personal privilege shall have
precedence of all other questions except motions
to adjourn.
This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521) to codify long-established prac-
tice that the House had hitherto been unwilling to define (II, 1603). It
was amended in the 103d Congress to authorize the Speaker to designate
a time within a period of two legislative days for the consideration of a
resolution to be offered from the floor by a Member other than the Majority
Leader or the Minority Leader after that Member has announced to the
House an intention to do so and the content of the resolution, and to divide
the time for debate on the resolution (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Clause
2 was amended in the 106th Congress to permit the announcement of the
form of the resolution to be dispensed with by unanimous consent, and
clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
The body of precedent relating to questions of the privileges of the House
§ 700. Questions of
includes rulings that span the adoption of this rule.
privileges of the The rule was adopted ‘‘to prevent the large consumption
House. of time which resulted from Members getting the floor
for all kinds of speeches under the pretext of raising
a question of privilege’’ (III, 2521). In a landmark decision on constitutional
assertions of privilege, Speaker Gillett placed significant reliance on the
history of rule IX by observing that it ‘‘was obviously adopted for the pur-
pose of hindering the extension of constitutional or other privilege’’ (VI,
48).
The privileges of the House include questions relating to its organization
(I, 22–24, 189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members
§ 701. Questions
relating to to their seats (III, 2579–2587), which may be raised
organization. as questions of the privileges of the House even though
the subject has been previously referred to committee
(I, 742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions include those: (1) to declare
prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the House has
referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to a committee for
investigation (H. Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381; H. Res. 52, Feb. 7, 1985,
[410]
Rule IX § 702
p. 2220; H. Res. 97, Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277; H. Res. 121, Apr. 2, 1985,
p. 7118; H. Res. 148, Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9801); (2) to raise various questions
incidental to the right to a seat (I, 322, 328, 673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588;
VII, 2316), such as a resolution to declare a vacancy in the House because
a Member-elect is unable to take the oath of office and to serve as a Member
or to expressly resign the office due to an incapacitating illness (H. Res.
80, Feb. 24, 1981, p. 2916); (3) to declare neither of two claimants seated
pending a committee report and decision of final right to the seat by the
House (Jan. 3, 1961, pp. 23–25; Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381), including incidental
provisions providing compensation for both claimants and office staffing
by the Clerk (Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381) and to direct temporary seating of a
certified Member-elect pending determination of final right notwith-
standing prior House action declining to seat either claimant (Feb. 7, 1985,
p. 2220; Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277); (4) to propose directly to dispose of a contest
over the title to a seat in the House (Nov. 8, 1997, p. 25294; Nov. 9, 1997,
p. 25721; Jan. 28, 1998, p. 175) or to dispose of such contest upon the
expiration of a specified day (Oct. 23, 1997, p. 23231; Oct. 29, 1997, p.
23695; Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23959; Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24645).
A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of the
privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Feb. 6, 2007, p. l). A
resolution declaring vacant the Office of the Speaker is presented as a
matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion with
respect to the organization of the House and the title of its Members to
seats, see §§ 18–30, 46–51, 56, and 58–60, supra.
The privileges of the House, as distinguished from that of the individual
Member, include questions relating to its constitutional
§ 702. Questions
relating to prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and ap-
constitutional propriations (see, e.g., II, 1480–1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8,
prerogatives. 1979, p. 31517; Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25418; June 16, 1988,
p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 1994, p.
21655). For a more thorough record of revenue bills returned to the Senate,
see § 102, supra. Such a question of privilege may be raised at any time
when the House is in possession of the papers (June 20, 1968, Deschler,
ch. 13, § 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but not otherwise (Apr. 6, 1995,
p. 10701). Such a question of privilege includes a resolution asserting that
a conference report accompanying a House bill originated revenue provi-
sions in derogation of the sole constitutional prerogative of the House and
resolving that such bill be recommitted to conference (July 27, 2000, p.
16565). The constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its func-
tion with respect to: (1) impeachment and matters incidental thereto (see
§ 604, supra); (2) bills ‘‘pocket vetoed’’ during an intersession adjournment
(Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156); (3) its power to punish for contempt, whether
of its own Members (II, 1641–1665), of witnesses who are summoned to
give information (II, 1608, 1612; III, 1666–1724), or of other persons (II,
1597–1640); (4) questions relating to legal challenges involving the prerog-
atives of the House (Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304; Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890), includ-
[411]
§ 702 Rule IX
ing a resolution responding to a court challenge to the prerogative of the

House to establish a Chaplain (Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). A resolution laying
on the table a message from the President containing certain averments
inveighing disrespect toward Members of Congress was considered as a
question of the privileges of the House asserting a breach of privilege in
a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).
For a discussion of the relationship of the House and its Members to
the courts, see §§ 290–291b, supra. For examples of Senate messages re-
questing the return of Senate measures that intruded on the constitutional
prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures, see § 565, supra.
For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House with respect to treaties
affecting revenue, see § 597, supra.
The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution
are exercised in accordance with the rules without precedence as matters
of privilege (III, 2567). Neither the enumeration of legislative powers in
article I of the Constitution nor the prohibition in the seventh clause of
section 9 of that article against any withdrawal from the Treasury except
by enactment of an appropriation renders a measure purporting to exercise
or limit the exercise of those powers a question of the privileges of the
House, because rule IX is concerned not with the privileges of the Congress,
as a legislative branch, but only with the privileges of the House, as a
House (Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec. 22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p.
40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420;
Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528–33; June 6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling
of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp. 18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934
(sustained by tabling of appeal), 18936 (sustained by tabling of appeal),
18938 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002, pp. 19001 (sustained
by tabling of appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). For example,
the following legislative propositions have been held not to involve a ques-
tion of constitutional privileges of the House: (1) a resolution requiring
a committee inquiry into the extent to which the right to vote was denied
under the provisions of the 14th amendment (VI, 48); (2) a resolution alleg-
ing an unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the President, and calling
on the President to seek the approval of Congress before such abrogation
(June 6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) a resolution
alleging that Congress had been negligent in its oversight responsibilities
with regard to military involvement in Iraq, and calling on leadership and
committee chairs to conduct oversight of that matter, but refraining from
alleging any impropriety (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757 0959 (sustained by ta-
bling of appeal)). On the other hand, an extraordinary question relating
to the House vote required by the Constitution to pass a joint resolution
extending the ratification period of a proposed constitutional amendment
was raised as a question of privilege where the House had not otherwise
made a separate determination on that procedural question and where
consideration of the joint resolution had been made in order (Speaker
O’Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203).
[412]
Rule IX § 703
The privileges of the House include certain questions relating to the

§ 703. Questions
conduct of Members, officers, and employees (see, e.g.,
relating to official I, 284, 285; III, 2628, 2645–2647). Under that standard,
conduct. the following resolutions have been held to constitute
questions of the privileges of the House: (1) directing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate illegal solici-
tation of political contributions in the House Office Buildings by unnamed
sitting Members (July 10, 1985, p. 18397); (2) establishing an ad hoc com-
mittee to investigate allegations of ‘‘ghost’’ employment in the House (Apr.
9, 1992, p. 9029); (3) directing a committee to further investigate the con-
duct of a Member on which it has reported to the House (Aug. 5, 1987,
p. 22458); (4) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
to report to the House the status of an investigation pending before the
committee (Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33846; Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35075); (5) appointing
an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23851; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24525);
(6) committing other matters to an outside counsel already appointed by
the committee (June 27, 1996, p. 15917); (7) directing the committee to
release the report of an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23852; Sept.
24, 1996, p. 24526); (8) making allegations concerning the propriety of re-
sponses by officers of the House to court subpoenas for papers of the House
without notice to the House, and directions to a committee to investigate
such allegations (Feb. 13, 1980, p. 2768); (9) making allegations of improper
representation by counsel of the legal position of Members in a brief filed
in the Court and directions for withdrawal of the brief (Mar. 22, 1990,
p. 4996); (10) making allegations of unauthorized actions by a committee
employee to intervene in judicial proceedings (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1601); (11)
directing the Clerk to notify interested parties that the House regretted
the use of official resources to present to the Supreme Court of Florida
a legal brief arguing the unconstitutionality of congressional term limits,
and that the House had no position on that question (Nov. 4, 1991, p.
29968); (12) alleging a chronology of litigation relating to the immunity
of a Member from civil liability for bona fide official acts and expressing
the views of the House thereon (May 12, 1988, p. 10574); (13) directing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to establish an investiga-
tive subcommittee and appoint outside counsel to investigate certain alle-
gations against a Member (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22734); (14) alleging, among
other things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and directing the Speaker
to appoint a bipartisan task force to address the efficacy of that committee
so as to restore public confidence in the ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005,
pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399, 6400) and directing the committee
to appoint nonpartisan professional staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026);
(15) alleging, among other things, the improper and unilateral firing of
nonpartisan staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and
illegal activities between a lobbyist and Members, and directing that com-
mittee to investigate misconduct of Members and staff with that lobbyist
[413]
§ 703 Rule IX
(Mar. 30, 2006, p. 4445; Apr. 5, 2006, pp. 4993, 4994); (16) alleging improper
conduct by a former Member with regard to the House Page program and
insufficient response thereto by the House leadership, and directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to establish a subcommittee
to investigate (Sept. 29, 2006, p. 21334); (17) alleging a violation of the
Code of Official Conduct and issuing a reprimand (May 22, 2007, p. 13525);
(18) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to inves-
tigate a Member’s conduct and make a recommendation regarding expul-
sion (June 5, 2007, p. 14600); (19) directing the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the
House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22746); (20) directing the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct and a previously-established select committee to inves-
tigate whether a vote was held open beyond a reasonable period of time
for the purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and vacating such
vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. l); (21) directing the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to investigate violations of the Code of Official Conduct
(Mar. 12, 2008, p. l); (22) alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions
and gifts and censuring a Member therefor (July 31, 2008, p. l); (23)
alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and gifts and violations
of federal tax law, directing the Committee on Standards of Official Con-
duct to investigate, and removing a Member as chair of a standing com-
mittee pending such investigation (Sept. 18, 2008, p. l); (24) alleging fail-
ure to properly report the receipt of gifts in accordance with financial disclo-
sure and tax laws, and removing the Member as chair pending an on-
going investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(Feb. 10, 2009, p. l; Oct. 7, 2009, p. l); (25) alleging a quid pro quo
between legislative activity and campaign contributions to Members, and
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
that relationship (Feb. 25, 2009, p. l; Mar. 5, 2009, p. l; Mar. 10, 2009,
p. l; Mar. 19, 2009, p. l; Mar. 25, 2009, p. l; Mar. 30, 2009, p. l;
Apr. 1, 2009, p. l; May 12, 2009, p. l; July 22, 2009, p. l) and alleging
an inadequate investigation into such allegations by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics), and directing the committee
to report on the extent of said investigation (Mar. 18, 2010, p. l; Mar.
25, 2010, p. l; Apr. 15, 2010, p. l; Apr. 22, 2010, p. l); (26) alleging
improper involvement of Members with a certain lobbying organization,
and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report
any action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3, 2009, p. l); (27)
alleging improper conduct by a former Member with regard to various
House staff and insufficient response thereto by House leadership, and
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics)
to establish a subcommittee to investigate the circumstances surrounding
the former Member’s misconduct and the responses thereto and to issue
a report thereon (Mar. 11, 2010, p. l; April 14, 2010, p. l). On the other
hand, a resolution alleging inconsistency between statements of the Speak-
er and of an intelligence agency and commissioning an investigation of
[414]
Rule IX § 703
the accuracy of her statements, where such investigation would extend

beyond the conduct of a Member and necessarily involve a review of the
agency itself, was held not to constitute a question of the privileges of
the House (May 21, 2009, p. l; June 16, 2009, p. l).
For a discussion of disciplinary resolutions meting out punishment for
violations of standards of official conduct, which constitute questions of
the privileges of the House, see §§ 62–66, supra.
In the 102d and 103d Congresses, a large number of resolutions relating
to the operation of the ‘‘bank’’ in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and
the management of the Office of the Postmaster were presented as ques-
tions of the privileges of the House. The former category included resolu-
tions: (1) terminating all bank and check-cashing operations in the Office
of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing the Committee on Standards of Offi-
cial Conduct to review GAO audits of such operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p.
25435); (2) instructing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
to disclose the names and pertinent account information of Members and
former Members found to have abused the privileges of the ‘‘bank’’ in the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519); (3) instructing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to disclose further account
information respecting Members and former Members having checks held
by that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5534); (4) mandating full and accurate
disclosure of pertinent information concerning the operation of that entity
(Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5551); (5) responding to a subpoena for records of that
entity (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9453); (6) responding to a contemporaneous request
for such records from a Special Counsel (Apr. 29, 1992, p. 9763); (7) author-
izing an officer of the House to release certain documents in response to
another such request from the Special Counsel (May 28, 1992, p. 12790).
The latter category included resolutions: (1) directing the Committee on
House Administration to conduct a thorough investigation of the operation
and management of the Office of the Postmaster in light of recent press
allegations of wrongdoing (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1589); (2) creating a select com-
mittee to investigate the same matter (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1599); (3) requiring
an explanation of a reported interference with authorized access to a com-
mittee investigation of that matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9024); (4) redressing
a perception of obstruction of justice by recusing the General Counsel to
the Clerk from matters relating to the investigation of that matter (Apr.
9, 1992, p. 9076); (5) directing the Speaker to explain the lapse of time
before the House received notice that several Members and an officer of
the House had received subpoenas to testify before a Federal grand jury
investigating that matter (May 14, 1992, p. 11309); (6) directing the Com-
mittee on House Administration to transmit to the Committee on Stand-
ards of Official Conduct and to the Department of Justice all records ob-
tained by its task force to investigate that matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18786);
(7) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
violations of confidentiality by staff engaged in the investigation of that
matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18795); (8) directing the Committee on House
[415]
§ 704 Rule IX
Administration to release transcripts of the proceedings of its task force

to investigate that matter, where the investigation was ordered as a ques-
tion of privilege and its results had been ordered reported to the House
(July 22, 1992, p. 18796; July 23, 1992, p. 19125); (9) directing the Com-
mittee on House Administration to redress the erroneous naming of a Mem-
ber in minority views accompanying a report on that matter (July 23, 1992,
p. 19121); (10) directing the public release of official papers of the House
relating to an investigation by the Committee on House Administration’s
task force to investigate the operation and management of the Office of
the Postmaster (July 22, 1993, p. 16634); (11) directing the public release
of transcripts and other relevant documents relating to an investigation
by the Committee on House Administration’s task force to investigate the
operation and management of the Office of the Postmaster unless two des-
ignees of the bipartisan leadership agree to the contrary (June 9, 1994,
p. 12437); (12) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
to defer any investigation relating to the operation of the former Post Office
until assured that its inquiry would not interfere with an ongoing criminal
investigation, as well as a resolution directing the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to proceed with the investigation (Mar. 2, 1994, p. 3672).
In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force appointed by
the Majority and Minority Leaders conducted a comprehensive review of
the House ethics process. During the deliberations of the task force, the
House imposed a moratorium on raising certain questions of privilege
under this rule with respect to official conduct and on the filing or proc-
essing of ethics complaints. The moratorium was imposed in the expecta-
tion that the recommendations of the task force would include rules
changes relating to establishment and enforcement of standards of official
conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House (Feb. 12, 1997,
p. 2058). The moratorium was extended through September 10, 1997 (July
30, 1997, p. 16958). The task force recommendations ultimately were re-
ported from the Committee on Rules and were adopted with certain amend-
ments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).
The privileges of the House include questions relating to the integrity
of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills
§ 704. Questions
relating to integrity of are considered (III, 2597–2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388,
proceedings. 3478), such as the constitutional question of the vote
required to pass a joint resolution extending the State
ratification period of a proposed constitutional amendment (Speaker
O’Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203). Privileges of the House also include:
(1) resignation of a Member from a select or standing committee (Speaker
Albert, June 16, 1975, p. 19054; Speaker O’Neill, Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579–
82); (2) newspaper charges affecting the honor and dignity of the House
(VII, 911); (3) the conduct of representatives of the press (II, 1630, 1631;
III, 2627; VI, 553).
Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of privilege
(III, 2624–2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous behavior of a
[416]
Rule IX § 704
former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former

Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the resolution
of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 1997,
p. 19340).
The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record also
constitute a question of privileges of the House (V, 7005–7023; VIII, 3163,
3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704; May 11, 1936, p.
7019; May 7, 1979, p. 10099), including a resolution: (1) asserting that
a Member’s remarks spoken in debate were omitted from the printed
Record, directing that the Record be corrected and requiring the Clerk
to report on the circumstances and possible corrective action (July 29, 1983,
p. 21685); (2) directing the Committee on Rules to investigate and report
to the House within a time certain on alleged alterations of the Record
(Jan. 24, 1984, p. 250); (3) addressing whether the Record should constitute
a verbatim transcript (May 8, 1985, p. 11072; Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515); (4)
alleging impropriety by a presiding officer and improper alteration of the
Record, and directing that a select committee investigate and that the
Record be corrected (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23194). Although a motion to correct
the Congressional Record based on improper alterations or insertions may
constitute a question of privilege, mere typographical errors or ordinary
revisions of a Member’s remarks do not form the basis for privileged mo-
tions to correct the Record (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9419; see § 690, supra). A
resolution directing the placement of an asterisk in the Congressional
Record to note alleged inaccuracies in a State of the Union address (but
not alleging improper transcription of that address) was held not to con-
stitute a question of privilege (Oct. 20, 2003, pp. 25255, 25256).
The protection of House records constitutes a question of the privileges
of the House, especially when records are demanded by the courts (III,
2604, 2659–2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. 25750; see also § 291a, supra).
Privileges of the House involving records also include resolutions: (1) fur-
nishing certain requested information to an Independent Counsel inves-
tigating covert arms transactions with Iran (June 4, 1992, p. 13664); (2)
responding to a request of a law enforcement official regarding the timing
of the public release of official papers of the House (July 22, 1993, p. 16624);
(3) directing a committee to investigate press publication of a report that
the House had ordered not to be released (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976,
p. 3914); (4) directing the public release of transcripts and other relevant
documents relating to an investigation by the Committee on House Admin-
istration’s task force to investigate the operation and management of the
Office of the Postmaster unless two designees of the bipartisan leadership
agreed to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437); (5) alleging that a Member
willfully abused his power as chair of a committee by unilaterally releasing
records of the committee in contravention of its rules (adopted ‘‘protocol’’),
and expressing disapproval of such conduct (May 14, 1998, p. 9279). How-
ever, a resolution directing a standing committee to release executive-ses-
sion material referred to it as such by special rule of the House was held
[417]
§ 704 Rule IX
to propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to constitute a question

of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).
A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including resolutions: (1)
asserting that a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings con-
tained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee mem-
bers in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the cre-
ation of a select committee to investigate and report by a date certain
(June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) alleging the unauthorized creation and fal-
sification of documents distributed to the general public at a committee
hearing and resolving that the Speaker take appropriate measures to en-
sure the integrity of the legislative process and report his actions and rec-
ommendations to the House (Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29373); (3) alleging that
a committee report contained descriptions of recorded votes (as required
by clause 3(b) of rule XIII) that deliberately mischaracterized certain
amendments and directing the chair of the committee to file a supplemental
report to change those descriptions (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418); (4) alleg-
ing that known errors in the engrossment of a bill were ignored, that matter
had been inserted into a conference report after conferees had signed it,
that material information concerning legislation had been withheld for the
purpose of achieving passage of that measure in a prior Congress, and
resolving that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigate
inaccuracies in the enrollment of a bill (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1948); (5) alleging
that known errors in the enrollment of a bill were ignored by the majority
leadership after the President had transmitted to the House a return veto
of the measure, admonishing the majority leadership for their roles therein,
and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to inves-
tigate the abuse of power surrounding the inaccuracies (May 22, 2008,
p. l). The privileges of the House also include: (1) the integrity of its
Journal (II, 1363; III, 2620) and messages (III, 2613); (2) unreasonable
delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President (Oct. 8, 1991, p.
25761); (3) a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House and
the Secretary of the Senate to produce official duplicates of certain legisla-
tive papers (Oct. 5, 1992, p. 32064). For a discussion of the privileged status
of a request of one House for the return of a measure messaged to the
other, see § 565, supra.
A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the interrup-
tion of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings constitutes
a question of privileges of the House (Mar. 17, 1988, p. 4180), as does
a resolution providing for an experiment in the telecasting and broad-
casting of House proceedings (Speaker O’Neill, Mar. 15, 1977, p. 7607).
Similarly, a resolution authorizing and directing the Speaker to provide
for the audio and visual broadcast coverage of the Chamber while Members
are voting has been held to present a question of the privileges of the
House, because rule V (formerly clause 9 of rule I), which requires complete
[418]
Rule IX § 704
and unedited audio and visual coverage of House proceedings and coverage
of record votes, had not been implemented (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9821).
Integrity in the conduct of a vote may involve a question of the privileges
of the House, including resolutions: (1) alleging intentional abuse of House
practices and customs in holding a vote open for approximately three hours
for the sole purpose of circumventing the initial will of the House and
directing the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent further
abuse (Dec. 8, 2003, p. 32099), or alleging such abuse, both in a prior
Congress and in the current one, and alleging illegal behavior on the House
floor during one such vote (bribery of a public official) (Dec. 8, 2005, pp.
27811, 27812); (2) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Con-
duct to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug.
3, 2007, p. 22746); (3) alleging irregularities in the conduct of a vote, direct-
ing House officers to preserve all records relating thereto, and establishing
a select committee of investigation thereof (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22768); (4)
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and a previously-
established select committee to investigate whether a vote was held open
beyond a reasonable period of time for the purpose of circumventing the
will of the House, and vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. l).
A resolution alleging partiality in the manner of presiding by a Speaker
pro tempore and stating that such actions bring dishonor and discredit
on the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783) or alleging impropriety by a presiding
officer, as well as alleging improper alteration of the Congressional Record
and directing an investigation and correction thereof (Aug. 4, 2007, p.
23194), presents a question of the privileges of the House.
Alleged improprieties in committee procedures may give rise to questions
of the privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1) alleging that the
chair of a committee directed his staff to request the Capitol Police to
remove minority party members from a committee room where they were
meeting during the reading of an amendment, alleging that the chair delib-
erately and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objec-
tion by a member of the committee to dispense with the reading of that
amendment, resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which
the chair conducted the markup, and finding that the bill considered at
that markup was not validly ordered reported (July 18, 2003, p. 18698)
and resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which the chair
summoned the Capitol Police as well as the manner in which he conducted
the markup, finding that the bill considered at that markup was not validly
ordered reported, and calling for a police report to be placed in the Record
(July 23, 2003 p. 19171); (2) alleging, among other things, the improper
and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct and directing the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task
force to address the efficacy of that committee so as to restore public con-
fidence in the ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005,
pp. 6399, 6400) and directing the committee to appoint nonpartisan profes-
sional staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (3) alleging that the chair
[419]
§ 705–§ 706 Rule IX
of a committee intentionally violated House rules and abused his power

as chair during a minority day of hearings under clause 2(j) of rule XI
and directing the chair to schedule a further day of hearings (June 16,
2005, p. 12994); (4) alleging that the majority members of a committee
wrongfully withheld a committee record from minority committee members
(Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2139); (5) alleging that staff of the House Commission
on Congressional Mailing Standards willfully applied different standards
to submitted material on the basis of party and disapproving of the failure
of the majority Members of that commission to ensure that staff executed
their duties in a professional, fair, and impartial manner (July 29, 2009,
p. l). However, charges of committee inaction (III, 2610), secret committee
conferences (VI, 578), refusal to make a staff study available to certain
Members and to the public (Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1370), refusal to give hearings
or allow petitions to be read (III, 2607), refusal to permit committee mem-
ber to take photostatic copies of committee files (Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14739),
and calling for a determination whether a committee violated House rules
by voting to take allegedly defamatory testimony in open session (June
30, 1958, p. 12690), were all held not to give rise to a question of the
privileges of the House.
A resolution alleging that a Member had interrupted an address by the
President to a joint session of Congress by interjecting remarks, and dis-
approving of that behavior, presents a question of the privileges of the
House (Sept. 15, 2009, p. l).
The privileges of the House include questions relating to the comfort
§ 705. Questions
and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629–
relating to comfort 2636), such as resolutions concerning the proper attire
and convenience. for Members in the Chamber when the temperature
is uncomfortably warm (July 17, 1979, p. 19008); as
well as questions relating to safety, such as resolutions requiring an inves-
tigation into the safety of Members in view of alleged structural deficiencies
in the West Front of the Capitol (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762–64) or an inse-
cure ceiling in the Hall (III, 2685); directing the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into alleged fire safety deficiencies in the environs
of the House (May 10, 1988, p. 10286); and directing the Sergeant-at-Arms
to ensure that House personnel are alerted to the dangers of electronic
security breaches on computer and information systems (June 11, 2008,
p. l).
A motion to amend the Rules of the House does not present a question
of privilege (Speaker Cannon, sustained by the House,
§ 706. May not effect
change in rules. thereby overruling the House’s decision of March 19,
1910 (VIII, 3376), which held such motion privileged
(VIII, 3377)), and a question of the privileges of the House may not be
invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House
or their interpretation (Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 38470–73; Sept.
9, 1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. 20339; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887), including
directions to the Speaker infringing upon the discretionary power of rec-
[420]
Rule IX § 706
ognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) (July
25, 1980, pp. 19762–64), for example, by requiring that the Speaker give
priority in recognition to any Member seeking to call up a matter highly
privileged pursuant to a statutory provision, over a member from the Com-
mittee on Rules seeking to call up a privileged report from that committee
(Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), or by requiring that the Speaker
state the question on overriding a veto before recognizing for a motion
to refer (thereby overruling prior decisions of the Chair to change the order
of precedence of motions) (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20281). Simi-
larly, a resolution alleging that, in light of an internationally objectionable
French program of nuclear test detonations, for the House to receive the
President of France in a joint meeting would be injurious to its dignity
and to the integrity of its proceedings, and resolving that the Speaker
withdraw the pending invitation and refrain from similar invitations, was
held not to present a question of the privileges of the House because it
proposed a collateral change in an order of the House previously adopted
(that the House recess for the purpose of receiving the President of France)
and a new rule for future cases (Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887). A resolution collat-
erally challenging the validity or fairness of an adopted rule of the House
by delaying its implementation was held not to give rise to a question
of the privileges of the House (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)). A resolution directing that the party ratios of all standing com-
mittees, subcommittees, and staffs thereof be changed within a time certain
to reflect overall party ratios in the House was held to constitute a change
in the Rules of the House and not to constitute a proper question of the
privileges of the House (the standing rules already providing mechanisms
for selecting committee members and staff) (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 78). On the
other hand, although the Rules of the House establish a procedure for
fixing the ratio of majority to minority members on full committees and
also provide that subcommittees are subject to the direction and control
of the full committee (clause 1 of rule XI), a question of the privileges
of the House is raised where it is alleged that subcommittee ratios should
reflect full committee ratios established by the House and failure to do
so denies representational rights at the subcommittee level (Oct. 4, 1984,
p. 30042). A resolution alleging that a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
at the start of each legislative day would enhance the dignity and integrity
of the proceedings of the House and directing that the Speaker implement
such a recitation as the practice of the House was held to propose a change
in the rules and therefore not to give rise to a question of the privileges
of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A resolution directing that the re-
programming process established in law for legislative branch appropria-
tions be subjected to third-party review for conformity with external stand-
ards of accounting but alleging no deviation from duly constituted proce-
dure was held not to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House
(May 20, 1992, p. 12005 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). A resolution
to permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on articles of
[421]
§ 706 Rule IX
impeachment of the President in contravention of statutory law and the

Rules of the House was held to be tantamount to a change in the rules
and therefore not to constitute a question of the privileges of the House
(Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27825). A resolution directing a standing committee to
release executive-session material referred to it as such by special rule
of the House was held to propose a change in the rules and, therefore,
not to constitute a question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 23, 1998,
p. 21562). A resolution expressing Congressional sentiment that the Presi-
dent should take specified action to achieve a desired public policy, even
though involving executive action under a treaty (under which the Senate
had exercised its prerogative to ratify), does not present a question of the
privileges of the House, but rather is a legislative matter to be considered
under ordinary rules relating to priority of business (June 6, 2002, p. 9492
(sustained by tabling of appeal)).
A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to prescribe
a special order of business for the House, because otherwise any Member
would be able to attach privilege to a legislative measure merely by alleging
impact on the dignity of the House based upon House action or inaction
(June 27, 1974, p. 21596; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec. 22, 1995, p. 38501;
Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2245; Oct.
10, 1998, p. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528–33; June 6, 2002, p. 9492
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp. 18932 (sustained by ta-
bling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18936 (sustained
by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002,
pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)). For example, the following resolutions have been held not to
give rise to a question of the privileges of the House: (1) a resolution direct-
ing a committee to meet and conduct certain business (June 27, 1974, p.
21596; July 31, 1975, p. 26250; June 25, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling
of appeal); July 9, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal); July 23,
2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (2) a resolution amending
a special order of business resolution (July 17, 2009, p. l (sustained by
tabling of appeal); July 24, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal));
(3) a resolution alleging that the inability of the House to enact certain
legislation constituted an impairment of the dignity of the House, the integ-
rity of its proceedings, and its place in public esteem, and resolving that
the House be considered to have passed such legislation (Jan. 3, 1996,
p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248) or exhorting it to do so (Mar. 11, 2008, p.
l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (4) a resolution precluding an adjourn-
ment of the House until a specified legislative measure is considered (Feb.
1, 1996, p. 2247; Mar. 13, 2008, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal))
or precluding an assembly during a specified post-election period (Aug.
10, 2010, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, p. l (sus-
tained by tabling of appeal)). See also § 702, supra, for a discussion of
legislative propositions purporting to present questions of the privileges
of the House.
[422]
Rule IX § 707–§ 708
The clause of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence over all
§ 707. As distinct from
other questions except a motion to adjourn is a recogni-
privileged questions. tion of a well-established principle in the House, for
it is an axiom of the parliamentary law that such a
question ‘‘supersedes the consideration of the original question, and must
be first disposed of’’ (III, 2522, 2523; VI, 595). As the business of the House
began to increase it was found necessary to give certain important matters
a precedence by rule, and such matters are called ‘‘privileged questions.’’
But as they relate merely to the order of business under the rules, they
are to be distinguished from ‘‘questions of privilege’’ that relate to the safety
or efficiency of the House itself as an organ for action (III, 2718). It is
evident, therefore, that a question of privilege takes precedence over a
matter merely privileged under the rules (III, 2526–2530; V, 6454; VIII,
3465). Certain matters of business, arising under provisions of the Con-
stitution, have been held to have a privilege that superseded the rules
establishing the order of business, as bills providing for census or appor-
tionment (I, 305–308), bills returned with the objections of the President
(IV, 3530–3536), propositions of impeachment (see § 604, supra), and ques-
tions incidental thereto (III, 2401, 2418; V, 7261; July 22, 1986, p. 17306;
Dec. 2, 1987, p. 33720; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726), matters
relating to the count of the electoral vote (III, 2573–2578), resolutions relat-
ing to adjournment and recess of Congress (V, 6698, 6701–6706; Nov. 13,
1997, p. 26538), and a resolution declaring the Office of the Speaker vacant
(VI, 35); but under later decisions certain of these matters that have no
other basis in the Constitution or in the rules for privileged status, such
as bills relating to census and apportionment, have been held not to present
questions of privilege, and the effect of such decisions is to require all
questions of privilege to come within the specific provisions of this rule
(VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147) (see § 702, supra).
A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the House
(alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the creation
of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to report back
to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104), but may not
appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the contingent fund
(now referred to as ‘‘applicable accounts of the House described in clause
1(k)(1) of rule X’’) (VI, 395).
The privilege of the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which
grants conditional immunity from arrest (§ 90, supra)
personal privilege. and an unconditional freedom of debate in the House
(III, 2670, § 92, supra). An assault on a Member within
the Capitol when the House was not in session, from a cause not connected
with the Member’s representative capacity, was also held to involve a ques-
tion of privilege (II, 1624). But there has been doubt as to the right of
the House to interfere for the protection of Members in matters not con-
nected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678, footnote). Charges
against the conduct of a Member are held to involve privilege when they
[423]
§ 708 Rule IX
relate to the Member’s representative capacity (III, 1828–1830, 2716; VI,

604, 612; VIII, 2479), but not when they relate to conduct at a time before
such person became a Member (II, 1287; III, 2691, 2723, 2725). Although
questions of personal privilege normally involve matters touching on a
Member’s reputation, a Member may be recognized for a question of per-
sonal privilege based on a violation of his rights as a Member, such as
unauthorized printed alterations in his statements made during a sub-
committee hearing in a prior Congress (because the second phrase of this
clause speaks to the ‘‘rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, individ-
ually’’) (June 28, 1983, p. 17674). A printed characterization by an officer
of the House of a Member’s proposed amendments as ‘‘dilatory and frivo-
lous’’ may give rise to a question of personal privilege (Aug. 1, 1985, p.
22542) as may the fraudulent use of a Member’s official stationery as a
‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter (Sept. 17, 1986, p. 23605). Although a Member
may be recognized on a question of personal privilege to complain about
an abuse of House rules as applied to debate in which such Member was
properly participating, such Member may not raise a question of personal
privilege merely to complain that microphones had been turned off during
disorderly conduct following expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16,
1988, p. 4085). A Member’s mere assertion of general corruption in the
House does not support a question of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007,
p. 1625).
Speaker Wright rose to a question of personal privilege to respond to
a ‘‘statement of alleged violations’’ pending in the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct; and, pending the committee’s disposition of his motion
to dismiss, announced his intention to resign as Speaker and as a Member
(May 31, 1989, p. 10440). Speaker Gingrich rose to a question of personal
privilege to discuss his own official conduct previously resolved by the
House, which question was based upon press accounts (Apr. 17, 1997, p.
5834). Speaker Hastert rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss
the process for selecting a Chaplain, which question was based on press
accounts (Mar. 23, 2000, p. 3478).
A Member rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss: (1) his
own official conduct relative to his account with the ‘‘bank’’ operated by
the Sergeant-at-Arms, which question was based on press accounts (Mar.
19, 1992, p. 6074); (2) reflections on his character in pointed descriptions
of recorded votes taken in committee on a Member’s amendments, included
in a committee report under clause 3(b) of rule XIII, which question was
based on the report and on certain media coverage thereof (May 5, 2005,
p. 8691; May 10, 2005, p. 9094); (3) allegations that he had used procedural
tactics to disrupt a memorial service in the Rotunda for a late Member
(Feb. 14, 2008, p. l); (4) a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ alleging willful violation of
the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by its ranking
minority member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. l); (5) allegations that he accepted
an appointment from the administration in exchange for certain votes
(Mar. 19, 2010, p. l); (6) a pending investigation by the Committee on
[424]
Rule IX § 709
Standards of Official Conduct of her, including disciplinary action taken

by the committee against professional staff assigned to the case (Dec. 9,
2010, p. l).
A committee chair rose to a question of personal privilege: (1) based
on press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he had
been ‘‘buying votes’’ (Mar. 26, 1998, p. 4851); (2) based on press accounts
containing statements impugning his character and motive by alleging in-
tentional violation of rules governing the conduct of an investigation (May
12, 1998, p. 8838); (3) to discuss his own official conduct, which question
was based on a letter of reproval reported by the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct (Oct. 5, 2000, p. 21048); (4) based on press accounts
impugning his character to discuss his decision to direct his staff to request
the Capitol Police to remove minority party members from a committee
room where they were meeting during the reading of an amendment at
a committee markup (July 23, 2003, p. 19171); (5) based on press accounts
regarding the receipt of illegal gifts and campaign contributions (July 31,
2008, p. l) and violations of federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. l) and
a statement of alleged violations by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct regarding those accusations (Aug. 10, 2010, p. l).
A distinction has been drawn between charges made by one Member
against another in a newspaper or press release (July 28, 1970, p. 26002)
or in a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139; May 14, 1996,
p. 11081; Mar. 12, 2008, p. l), and the same when made on the floor
(III, 1827, 2691, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against Members
in their representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832, 2694, 2696–
2699, 2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the names of
individual Members are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI, 616, 617).
But vague charges in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570), criticisms
(III, 2712–2714; VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of the Member’s
speeches or acts or responses in an interview (III, 2707, 2708; Aug. 3,
1990, p. 22135), have not been entertained. A question of personal privilege
may not ordinarily be based merely on words spoken in debate (July 23,
1987, p. 20861; Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085; Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29569; Sept.
25, 1996, p. 24807; Sept. 21, 2001, p. 17613; Mar. 31, 2004, p. 5763; July
21, 2009, p. l) or conveyed by an exhibit in debate (June 28, 2000, p.
12723). However, a Member may raise a question of personal privilege
based upon press accounts of another Member’s remarks, in debate or off
the floor, that impugn his character or motives (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207,
12211; May 31, 1984, p. 14620), newspaper accounts of televised press
coverage of a committee hearing at which he was criticized derogatorily
(Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3196), or press accounts arraigning personally offensive
remarks a Member had made in debate regarding the President (Oct. 23,
2007, p. 27967).
The body of precedent relating to the precedence of questions of privilege
spans both the adoption of this rule in 1880 and its
§ 709. Precedence of
questions of privileges amendment to require notice in certain cases in 1993.
of the House.
[425]
§ 709 Rule IX
A question of privilege may interrupt: (1) the reading of the Journal

(II, 1630; VI, 637); (2) the consideration of a bill (or series of measures)
that had been made in order by a special rule (III, 2524, 2525); (3) in
an exceptional decision, where the rule thereon ordered the previous ques-
tion to final passage without intervening motion, after consideration of
the measure in the Committee of the Whole but before passage in the
House (VI, 560); (4) under antiquated drafting conventions for special or-
ders of business that ordered the previous question after debate, the consid-
eration of certain matters on which the previous question has been ordered
(III, 2532; VI, 561; VIII, 2688). A question of privilege takes precedence
over (1) business in order on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394; VII, 908–910),
a ‘‘suspension day’’ (III, 2553; VI, 553; June 5, 2007, p. 14600), or over
certain motions given precedence under a special rule (VI, 565); (2) reports
from the Rules Committee before consideration has begun (VIII, 3491; Mar.
11, 1987, p. 5403); (3) call of the Consent Calendar on Monday (VI, 553),
before that Calendar was repealed (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574);
(4) motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 554; VIII,
3461); (5) unfinished business, privileged under clauses 1 and 3 of rule
XIV (formerly rule XXIV) (Speaker Albert, June 4, 1975, p. 16860). Because
a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House takes prece-
dence over a motion to suspend the rules, it may be offered and voted
on between motions to suspend the rules on which the Speaker has post-
poned record votes (May 17, 1983, p. 12486). In general, one question of
privilege may not take precedence over another (III, 2534, 2552, 2581),
and the Chair’s power of recognition determines which of two matters of
equal privilege is considered first (July 24, 1990, p. 18916). Although under
rule IX a question of the privileges of the House takes precedence over
all other questions except the motion to adjourn, the Speaker may, pursu-
ant to the power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause
2 of rule XIV), entertain unanimous-consent requests for ‘‘one-minute
speeches’’ pending recognition for a question of privilege, because such
unanimous-consent requests, if granted, temporarily waive the standing
Rules of the House relating to the order of business (Speaker O’Neill, July
10, 1985, p. 18394; Feb. 6, 1989, pp. 1676–82).
A Member’s announcement of intent to offer a resolution as a question
of privilege may take precedence over a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules; but, if a special order is pending, such announcements
are counted against debate on the resolution absent unanimous consent
to the contrary (Oct. 28, 1997, pp. 23525, 23527).
While a question of privilege is pending, a message of the President
is received (V, 6640–6642), but is read only by unanimous consent (V, 6639).
A motion to reconsider may also be entered but may not be considered
(V, 5673–5676). It has been held that only one question of privilege may
be pending at a time (III, 2533), but having presented one question of
privilege, a Member, before discussing it, may submit a second question
of privilege related to the first and discuss both on one recognition (VI,
[426]
Rule IX § 711–§ 713
562). Although a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House

has precedence over all other questions, it is nevertheless subject to disposi-
tion by the ordinary motions permitted under clause 4 of rule XVI, and
by the motion to commit under clause 2 of rule XIX (formerly clause 1
of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p.
10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).
When a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question
of personal privilege, and does not offer a resolution
questions of personal affecting the dignity or integrity of the House for action,
privilege. the practice as to precedence is somewhat different.
Thus, a Member rising to a question of personal privi-
lege may not interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6051, 6052, 6058,
6059; VI, 554, 564), or take from the floor another Member who has been
recognized for debate (V, 5002; VIII, 2459, 2528; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26508;
July 23, 1987, p. 20861), but may interrupt the ordinary legislative busi-
ness (III, 2531). A Member may address the House on a question of personal
privilege even after the previous question has been ordered on a pending
bill (VI, 561; VIII, 2688). Under modern practice, a question of personal
privilege may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole (Sept. 4, 1969,
p. 24372; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), the proper remedy being a demand
that words be taken down pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI; yet a breach
of privilege occurring in the Committee of the Whole relates to the dignity
of the House and is so treated (II, 1657). A question of personal privilege
may not be raised while a question of the privileges of the House is pending
(Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9808; May 1, 1985, p. 10003). The Chair may require
a Member to submit for examination the material upon which the Member
would rely before conferring recognition for a question of personal privilege
(Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1625).
During a call of the House in the absence of a quorum, only such ques-
tions of privilege as relate immediately to those pro-
privilege in relation to ceedings may be presented (III, 2545). See also § 1024,
quorum. infra.
Whenever it is asserted on the floor that the privi-
leges of the House are invaded, the Speaker entertains
the question (II, 1501), and may then refuse recognition
if the resolution is not admissible as a question of privilege under the
rule. A proper question of privilege may be renewed (Nov. 17, 1995, p.
33846). Although the early custom was for the Speaker to submit to the
House the question whether a resolution involved the privileges of the
House (III, 2718), the modern practice is for the Speaker to rule directly
on the question (VI, 604; Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5404; Feb.
3, 1995, p. 3571; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905), subject to appeal where appropriate
(Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21596). In raising a question of personal
privilege, a Member in the first instance must apprise the Chair of the
grounds on which recognition may be conferred (Deschler, ch. 11, § 21.1;
Sept. 10, 2008, p. l).
[427]
§ 713 Rule IX
Under the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker
has discretion to recognize a Member other than the Majority or Minority
Leader to proceed immediately on a resolution offered as a question of
the privileges of the House (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974); and
is not required to announce the time designated to consider a resolution
at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209). The Speaker
does not rule on the privileged status of a resolution at the time that resolu-
tion is noticed, but only when called up (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209; Sept. 13,
1994, p. 24389; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571).
Common fame has been held sufficient basis for raising a question (III,
2538, 2701); a telegraphic dispatch may also furnish a basis (III, 2539).
A report relating to the contemptuous conduct of a witness before a com-
mittee gives rise to a question of the privileges of the House and may,
under this rule, be considered on the same day reported notwithstanding
the requirement of clause 4(a) of rule XIII (formerly clause 2(l)(6) of rule
XI) that reports from committees be available to Members for at least three
calendar days before consideration (Speaker Albert, July 13, 1971, pp.
24720–23). But a Member may not, as a matter of right, require the reading
of a book or paper by suggesting that it contains matter infringing on
the privileges of the House (V, 5258). In presenting a question of personal
privilege the Member is not required in the first instance to offer a motion
or resolution, but must take this preliminary step in raising a question
of the privileges of the House (III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565–569; VII, 3464).
Such a resolution is read in full by the Clerk (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420),
and a parliamentary inquiry regarding its content, in the discretion of
the Chair, should await the conclusion of the reading (Dec. 8, 2005, p.
27812). A proposition of privilege may lose its precedence by association
with a matter not of privilege (III, 2551; V, 5890; VI, 395). Debate on
a question of privilege is under the hour rule (V, 4990; VIII, 2448), but
the previous question may be moved (II, 1256; V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672);
since the 103d Congress, however, the rule has provided for divided control
of the hour in the case of a resolution offered from the floor. Consideration
of a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House may include
recognition for an hour of debate on a motion to refer under clause 4 of
rule XVI (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557; Sept. 29, 2006, p. 21334); a separate
hour of debate on the resolution, itself, under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly
clause 2 of rule XIV); and a motion to commit (not debatable after the
ordering of the previous question) under clause 2 of rule XIX (formerly
clause 1 of rule XVII) (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557). Debate on a letter of resigna-
tion is controlled by the Member moving the acceptance of the resignation
(Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579–82) if the resigning Member does not seek recogni-
tion (June 16, 1975, p. 19054; June 8, 2006, p. 10498). Debate on a question
of personal privilege must be confined to the statements or issues that
gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075–77; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448,
2481; May 31, 1984, p. 14623). A Member recognized only on the question
of whether a resolution qualifies as a question of privilege is not recognized
[428]
Rule X, clause 1 § 714
to debate such resolution (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757, 24758). Remarks uttered
while not under recognition for debate do not render untimely a motion
before debate to lay on the table a resolution offered under this rule (Aug.
3, 2007, p. 22783).
RULE X
ORGANIZATION OF COMMITTEES
Committees and their legislative jurisdic-

tions
1. There shall be in the House the following
§ 714. Number and standing committees, each of which
jurisdiction of
standing committees. shall have the jurisdiction and re-
lated functions assigned by this
clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills, resolu-
tions, and other matters relating to subjects
within the jurisdiction of the standing commit-
tees listed in this clause shall be referred to
those committees, in accordance with clause 2 of
rule XII, as follows:
Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the
44 committees of the 79th Congress were consolidated into 19, effective
January 2, 1947. The number of standing committees grew over time with
the creation of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (now Science,
Space, and Technology), established on July 21, 1958 (p. 14513); the Com-
mittee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics), established on April
13, 1967 (p. 9425); the Committee on the Budget, established on July 12,
1974, by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 297); and the
Committee on Small Business, established as a standing committee effec-
tive January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
The Committee on Internal Security was abolished in the 94th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20).
The 104th Congress reduced the number to 19 by abolishing the Commit-
tees on the District of Columbia, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and Post
Office and Civil Service (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Matters
formerly in the jurisdiction of the Committees on the District of Columbia
and Post Office and Civil Service were transferred to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (formerly Government Reform and
Oversight); and matters formerly in the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries were transferred to the Committees on
[429]
§ 714 Rule X, clause 1
Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure (formerly Public

Works and Transportation), Armed Services (National Security during the
104th and 105th Congresses), and Science, Space, and Technology (Science
during the 104th through 109th Congresses) (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). The 109th Congress established the Committee on Home-
land Security (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42).
A Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was established in the
95th Congress (H. Res. 658, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932–49). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, that committee was found in
former rule XLVIII (current clause 11 of rule X) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). A Permanent Select Committee on Aging was added to clause 6
of this rule effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470) and stricken in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p.
49).
Although earlier forms of the rule specified the number of Members com-
prising each of the standing committees, those specifications were elimi-
nated in the 93d Congress, leaving to the House the authority to establish
the sizes of committees by the numbers elected pursuant to clause 5 of
rule X. The rules still specify part of the composition of the Committee
on the Budget (clause 5(a)(2) of rule X), and the size and ratio of the Com-
mittee on Ethics (clause 5(a)(3)(A) of rule X), as well as the size and pre-
ferred composition of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(clause 11(a) of rule X).
The Speaker refers public bills in accordance with clause 1 of rule X,
but when the House itself refers a bill it may send it to any committee
without regard to the rules of jurisdiction (IV, 4375; V, 5527; VII, 2131)
and jurisdiction is thereby conferred (IV, 4362–4364; VII, 2105). Motions
for change of reference of public bills and resolutions must be authorized
by the committee claiming jurisdiction (clause 7 of rule XII; VII, 2121;
Feb. 13, 1918, p. 2070; Jan. 10, 1941, p. 100), must be made immediately
following the reading of the Journal (VII, 1809, 2119, 2120), must apply
to a single bill and not to a class of bills (VII, 2125), may be amended
(VII, 2127), may not be divided (VII, 2125), and may not be debated (VII,
2126, 2128), but are not in order on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 2117), and
are not privileged if the original reference was not erroneous (VII, 2125).
The rereferral of most bills is accomplished by unanimous consent (see
Procedure, ch. 17, §§ 17–38).
Before the 94th Congress, a bill could not be divided among two or more
committees, even though it might have contained matters properly within
the jurisdiction of several committees (IV, 4372). The Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974 added former clause 5 of rule X (current clause 2
of rule XII), permitting the Speaker to refer any matter to more than one
committee (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). That provision
was amended in the 104th Congress to require the Speaker to designate
a primary committee among those to which a matter is initially referred
(sec. 205, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). However, the provision was
[430]
amended again in the 108th Congress to permit the Speaker to refrain

from designating a primary committee in extraordinary circumstances (sec.
2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7; see § 816, infra).
A committee having jurisdiction over a subject by means of a petition
(IV, 3365) properly referred (IV, 4361) can report on the subject thereof.
It has generally been held that a committee may not report a bill whereof
the subject matter has not been referred to it by the House (IV, 4355–
4360, 4372; VII, 1029, 2101, 2102). Where a House bill is returned from
the Senate with a substitute amendment relating to a new and different
subject, the reference could nevertheless be to the committee having juris-
diction over the original bill (IV, 4373, 4374); normally, however, such
amended measures are held at the Speaker’s table until disposed of by
the House. The erroneous reference of a public bill under this rule, if it
remains uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction (IV, 4365–4371; VII, 2108),
but such is not the case with a private bill or petition (IV, 3364, 4382–
4389) unless the reference be made by action of the House itself (IV, 4390,
4391; VII 2131). A point of order as to the reference of a private bill is
timely when the bill comes up for consideration, either in the House or
in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4382–4389; VII, 2116, 2132; VIII, 2262)
or at any time before passage (VII, 2116). The reference of a bill to a com-
mittee involving the same subject matter as a bill previously reported con-
fers jurisdiction anew upon the committee to consider and report the bill
subsequently introduced (VIII, 2311).
Clause 4 of rule XII prohibits the receipt or consideration of certain pri-
vate bills relating to claims, pensions, construction of bridges, and the cor-
rection of military or naval records. In the 104th Congress the House adopt-
ed a rule to prohibit introduction or consideration of any bill or resolution
expressing a commemoration by designation of a specified period of time
(current clause 5 of rule XII, former clause 2 of rule XXII) (sec. 216, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
(a) Committee on Agriculture.

(1) Adulteration of seeds, insect pests, and
§ 715. Agriculture. protection of birds and animals in
forest reserves.
(2) Agriculture generally.
(3) Agricultural and industrial chemistry.
(4) Agricultural colleges and experiment sta-
tions.
(5) Agricultural economics and research.
(6) Agricultural education extension serv-
ices.
[431]
(7) Agricultural production and marketing

and stabilization of prices of agricultural prod-
ucts, and commodities (not including distribu-
tion outside of the United States).
(8) Animal industry and diseases of animals.
(9) Commodity exchanges.
(10) Crop insurance and soil conservation.
(11) Dairy industry.
(12) Entomology and plant quarantine.
(13) Extension of farm credit and farm secu-
rity.
(14) Inspection of livestock, poultry, meat
products, and seafood and seafood products.
(15) Forestry in general and forest reserves
other than those created from the public do-
main.
(16) Human nutrition and home economics.
(17) Plant industry, soils, and agricultural
engineering.
(18) Rural electrification.
(19) Rural development.
(20) Water conservation related to activities
of the Department of Agriculture.
This committee was established in 1820 (IV, 4149). In 1880 the subject
of forestry was added to its jurisdiction, and the committee was conferred
authority to receive estimates of and to report appropriations (IV, 4149).
However, on July 1, 1920, authority to report appropriations for the De-
partment of Agriculture was transferred to the Committee on Appropria-
tions (VII, 1860).
The basic form of the present jurisdictional statement was made effective
January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 812). Subparagraph (7) was altered by the 93d Congress, effective
January 3, 1975, to include jurisdiction over agricultural commodities (in-
cluding the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)) while transferring juris-
diction over foreign distribution and nondomestic production of commod-
ities to the Committee on Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470). Nevertheless, the committee has retained limited juris-
[432]
diction over measures to release CCC stocks for such foreign distribution
(Sept. 14, 1989, p. 20428). Previously unstated jurisdictions over commod-
ities exchanges and rural development were codified effective January 3,
1975.
The 104th Congress consolidated the committee’s jurisdiction over in-
spection of livestock and meat products to include inspection of poultry,
seafood, and seafood products, and added subparagraph (20) relating to
water conservation (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Clerical
The committee has had jurisdiction over bills for establishing and regu-
lating the Department of Agriculture (IV, 4150), for inspection of livestock
and meat products, regulation of animal industry, diseases of animals (IV,
4154; VII, 1862), adulteration of seeds, insect pests, protection of birds
and animals in forest reserves (IV, 4157; VII, 1870), the improvement of
the breed of horses, even with the cavalry service in view (IV, 4158; VII,
1865), and, in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, amend-
ing the Horse Protection Act to prevent the shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, or receiving of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption
(July 13, 2006, p. 14304).
The committee, having charge of the general subject of forestry, has re-
ported bills relating to timber, and forest reserves other than those created
from the public domain (IV, 4160). The Committee on Natural Resources,
and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill to convey land that
is part of a National Forest created from the public domain (Mar. 23, 2004,
p. 4926). The committee also has exercised jurisdiction over bills: relating
to agricultural colleges and experiment stations (IV, 4152), incorporation
of agricultural societies (IV, 4159), and establishment of a highway commis-
sion (IV, 4153); to discourage fictitious and gambling transactions in farm
products (IV, 4161; VII, 1861); to regulate the transportation, sale, and
handling of dogs and cats intended for use in research and the licensing
of animal research facilities (July 29, 1965, p. 18691); to designate an agri-
cultural research center (May 14, 1996, p. 11070). The committee shares
with the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction over a bill comprehen-
sively amending the Immigration and Nationality Act and including food
stamp eligibility requirements for aliens (Sept. 19, 1995, p. 25533).
The House referred the President’s message dealing with the refinancing
of farm-mortgage indebtedness to the committee, thus conferring jurisdic-
tion (Apr. 4, 1933, p. 1209).
The committee has jurisdiction over a bill relating solely to executive
level positions in the Department of Agriculture (Mar. 2, 1976, p. 4958)
and has jurisdiction over bills to develop land and water conservation pro-
grams on private and non-Federal lands (June 7, 1976, p. 16768).
[433]
(b) Committee on Appropriations.

(1) Appropriation of the revenue for the
§ 716. Appropriations. support of the Government.
(2) Rescissions of appropriations contained
in appropriation Acts.
(3) Transfers of unexpended balances.
(4) Bills and joint resolutions reported by
other committees that provide new entitle-
ment authority as defined in section 3(9) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and re-
ferred to the committee under clause 4(a)(2).
This committee was established in 1865, when all the general appropria-
tion bills were confided to its care. In 1885 a portion of the bills were
distributed to other committees. On July 1, 1920, the committee again
was given jurisdiction over all appropriations (VII, 1741).
In the 95th Congress this paragraph was amended to correct a typo-
graphical error (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53). Subparagraph (4) was
amended in the 105th and 106th Congresses to conform to changes made
by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33; H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, it transferred an undesignated portion of this paragraph to
clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The authority to conduct studies and examinations of the organization
and operation of executive departments and agencies was first given to
this committee on February 11, 1943 (p. 884); continued by resolution of
January 9, 1945 (p. 135); and incorporated into permanent law in section
202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). This
authority was first made part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953
(pp. 17, 24), and is now listed as a special oversight responsibility of the
committee in clause 3 of rule X, effective January 3, 1975 (formerly clause
2(b)(3) of rule X) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The
committee is also authorized and directed to hold hearings on the budget
as a whole in open session within 30 days of its submission (clause
4(a)(1)(A) of rule X), and to study on a continuing basis provisions of law
providing spending authority or permanent budget authority and to report
to the House recommendations for terminating or modifying such provi-
sions (clause 4(a)(3) of rule X). The requirement of section 139 of the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) that the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate develop a standard appropriation
classification schedule was superseded by section 202(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1167), which now imposes that respon-
sibility upon the Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Management
[434]
Rule X, clause 1 § 717–§ 718
and Budget. The further requirement of section 139 of the 1946 Act that
the Appropriations Committees study existing permanent appropriations
and recommend which, if any, should be discontinued was made the respon-
sibility of all standing committees of the House by clause 4(e) of rule X,
through enactment of section 253 of the 1970 Act (84 Stat. 1175).
Although this committee has authority to report appropriations, the
power to report legislation relating thereto belongs to other committees
(IV, 4033; clause 2 of rule XXI), and a general appropriation bill reported
from this committee may not contain items of appropriation not authorized
by law or provisions amending existing law (except retrenchments and
rescissions of appropriations), and may not contain reappropriations of un-
expended balances except within agencies (clause 2 of rule XXI). General
appropriation bills may not be considered in the House until hearings
thereon have been available for three days (clause 4 of rule XIII).
Effective July 12, 1974, special Presidential messages on rescissions and
§ 717. Responsibilities
deferrals of budget authority submitted pursuant to
under Budget Act. sections 1012 and 1013 of the Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683, 684), as well as rescission
bills and impoundment resolutions defined in section 1011 (2 U.S.C. 682)
and required in section 1017 (2 U.S.C. 688) to be referred to the appropriate
committee, are referred to the Committee on Appropriations if the proposed
rescissions or deferrals involve funds already appropriated or obligated.
Also effective July 12, 1974, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (sec.
404(a)) added to the committee’s jurisdiction, which was later perfected
by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470, subparagraphs (2), (3), and (4)).
(c) Committee on Armed Services.

(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and
§ 718. Armed Services. Army, Navy, and Air Force res-
ervations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, in-
cluding the Departments of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including
measures relating to the maintenance, oper-
ation, and administration of interoceanic ca-
nals.
[435]
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State

Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-re-
lated activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant
marine, including financial assistance for the
construction and operation of vessels, mainte-
nance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference,
and merchant marine officers and seamen as
these matters relate to the national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other
benefits and privileges of members of the
armed forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in
support of the armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers’ and sailors’ homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials nec-
essary for the common defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Depart-
ment of Defense.
This committee was established January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the Committee
on Military Affairs with the Committee on Naval Affairs, both of which
had been created in 1822 (IV, 4179, 4189) and had jurisdiction over appro-
priations from 1885 to 1920 (IV, 4179, 4189; VII, 1741). The committee
was redesignated the Committee on National Security in the 104th Con-
gress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464) and was redesignated
again the Committee on Armed Services in the 106th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion
[436]
of a redundant undesignated recitation of a special oversight function (H.

Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Much of the present legislative jurisdiction in this paragraph was adopt-
ed on January 3, 1953 (p. 17), to reflect jurisdiction over the Department
of Defense, which was created in the National Security Act of 1947 (61
Stat. 495). In the 95th Congress, when the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy was abolished, this committee gained jurisdiction over military ap-
plications of nuclear energy (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53). The 104th
Congress added subparagraph (8) for clarification and subparagraphs (5),
(6), and (9) to reflect the transfer of those matters from the former Com-
mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464), and later amended subparagraph (8) to effect a technical
correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). The 112th Congress added
subparagraph (16), a matter formerly within the sole jurisdiction of the
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (sec. 2(e)(6), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
l).
The committee has jurisdiction over bills: relating to military housing
construction (Feb. 21, 1962, p. 2684; Apr. 18, 1967, p. 9981); amending
title 10 of the United States Code to permit suits against the United States
for damage to reputation of members of Armed Forces acquitted of charges
of crimes against civilians in combat zones (July 15, 1970, p. 24451); for
construction of military medical facilities (Oct. 3, 1966, p. 24859); to require
military commissary, post exchange, and medical care privileges for vet-
erans with sufficient service-connected disabilities (Feb. 3, 1976, p. 1972);
of a private character to waive the statutory time limit on the award of
the Congressional Medal of Honor on individuals (Feb. 22, 1982, p. 1812);
including authorization of appropriations to the Department of Energy for
resource applications for naval petroleum and oil shale reserves (May 1,
1978, p. 11946); and effecting the transfer of military property to a State
to be designated by the State as a wilderness area (Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32627).
The committee exercised jurisdiction with the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) over a resolution regarding
continued operation of the Hanford Nuclear Reactor to produce power for
the Bonneville Power Administration (July 17, 1986, p. 16888).
(d) Committee on the Budget.

(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget (as
§ 719. Budget. defined in section 3(4) of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974),
other matters required to be referred to the
committee under titles III and IV of that Act,
and other measures setting forth appropriate
[437]
levels of budget totals for the United States

Government.
(2) Budget process generally.
(3) Establishment, extension, and enforce-
ment of special controls over the Federal
budget, including the budgetary treatment of
off-budget Federal agencies and measures pro-
viding exemption from reduction under any
order issued under part C of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
This committee was established in the 93d Congress, effective July 12,
1974, by section 101 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
299). The separate subpoena authority conferred upon the committee by
section 101(b) of that Act has been superseded by the general grant of
subpoena authority to all committees in clause 2(m) of rule XI (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The committee is also charged
with the special oversight functions as described in clause 3(c) and clause
4(b) of rule X.
graph consisted of the committee’s legislative jurisdiction (current para-
graph (d)), its oversight jurisdiction (current clause 4 of rule X), and its
composition (current clause 5(a)(2) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47)).
In the 99th Congress this paragraph was again amended by section
232(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
to confer jurisdiction over Senate joint or concurrent resolutions consti-
tuting congressional responses to a Presidential sequestration order issued
pursuant to a report of the Comptroller General under section 252(b) of
that Act (P.L. 99–177). It was again amended by the Budget Enforcement
Act of 1990 to conform subparagraph (2) to changes in the congressional
budget laws (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508). In the 104th Congress, the House
amended the paragraph to expand the limited legislative jurisdiction of
the committee by: (1) adding other measures setting forth appropriate lev-
els of budget totals to subparagraph (2) (now subparagraph (1)); (2) grant-
ing the committee jurisdiction over the congressional budget process gen-
erally in a new subparagraph (3) (now subparagraph (2)); and (3) granting
the committee jurisdiction over special controls over the Federal budget
in a new subparagraph (4) (now subparagraph (3)), including receiving
from the former Committee on Government Operations (now Oversight
and Government Reform) jurisdiction over budgetary treatment of off-
budget Federal agencies and measures providing exemption from seques-
[438]
tration orders issued under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Three rereferrals
from the Committee on Government Reform to the Committee on the Budg-
et marked this migration of off-budget treatment jurisdiction: (1) the Com-
mittee on the Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill excluding from
the budget the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (although
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform retains pro-
grammatic jurisdiction over that Fund); (2) the Committee on the Budget
has primary jurisdiction over a bill excluding from the budget the Highway
Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (although the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure retains programmatic juris-
diction); and (3) the Committee on the Budget has secondary jurisdiction
over a bill amending title 49 of the United States Code and providing off-
budget treatment for the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Mainte-
nance Trust Fund (Dec. 6, 1995, p. 35572). The chair of the Committee
on the Budget inserted in the Congressional Record a memorandum of
understanding between this committee and the Committee on Rules to
clarify each Committee’s jurisdiction over the congressional budget process
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. 617). In the 105th Congress the jurisdictional statement
in subparagraph (2), previously confined to the congressional budget proc-
ess, was broadened to encompass also the executive budget process for-
merly included in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight (now Oversight and Government Reform) (H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
This committee, and not the Committee on Ways and Means, has jurisdic-
tion over a bill establishing a rule of sequestration under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27085). This
committee has primary jurisdiction, and the Committee on Ways and
Means has additional jurisdiction, over a bill taking Social Security trust
funds off budget (Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27085). This committee has primary
jurisdiction, and the Committee on Rules has additional jurisdiction, over
a bill amending the Budget Act to establish new legislative points of order
and directing that the President include a specified matter with the budget
(Feb. 13, 2001, p. 1817).
(e) Committee on Education and the Work-

force.
(1) Child labor.
(2) Gallaudet University and Howard Uni-
§ 720. Education and versity and Hospital.
the Workforce.
[439]
(3) Convict labor and the entry of goods

made by convicts into interstate commerce.
(4) Food programs for children in schools.
(5) Labor standards and statistics.
(6) Education or labor generally.
(7) Mediation and arbitration of labor dis-
putes.
(8) Regulation or prevention of importation
of foreign laborers under contract.
(9) Workers’ compensation.
(10) Vocational rehabilitation.
(11) Wages and hours of labor.
(12) Welfare of miners.
(13) Work incentive programs.
This committee was established on January 2, 1947, as part of the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the Committee
on Education (created in 1867) (IV, 4242) and the Committee on Labor
(created in 1883) (IV, 4244). When it was redesignated as the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities in the 104th Congress, the
jurisdictional statement remained unchanged except by the combination
of labor standards and labor statistics in a single subparagraph (5) (sec.
202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the 105th Congress the committee
was redesignated the Committee on Education and the Workforce (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), was redesignated the Committee on Education
and Labor in the 110th Congress (sec. 212(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007,
p. 19), and was redesignated as the Committee on Education and the Work-
force in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(7), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975, the committee gained jurisdiction over food programs for children
in schools, an expansion of earlier jurisdiction over school-lunch programs
(subpara. (4)), work incentive programs (subpara. (13)), and Indian edu-
cation, a matter formerly within the specific jurisdiction of the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources); jurisdiction of
the committee over international education matters was specifically trans-
ferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and its special oversight func-
tion was inserted in clause 3(c) of rule X (current clause 3(d) of rule X)
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Clerical and stylistic
changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, including the deletion of obsolete references to the Columbia
Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind, Freedmen’s Hospital, and the
[440]
United States Employees’ Compensation Commission and the deletion of

a redundant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight func-
tions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The committee has jurisdiction over bills dealing with juvenile delin-
quency (Jan. 22, 1959, p. 1027), runaway youth (July 12, 1973, p. 23633;
Sept. 10, 1973, p. 28970), human services programs administered by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (June 21, 1972, p. 21733),
education of Indians (Apr. 15, 1975, p. 10247; June 10, 1991, p. 14049),
including the Native American Programs Act (Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23967),
and compensation for work injuries to Federal employees (Apr. 16, 1975,
p. 10339); over bills amending the Community Services Block Grant Act
to continue antipoverty programs originally authorized by the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 (Nov. 4, 1993, p. 27359); and over an executive
communication proposing draft legislation to amend the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(Mar. 24, 1983, p. 7402). The committee shares with the Committee on
the Judiciary jurisdiction over a bill comprehensively amending the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act and including provisions addressing the en-
forcement of labor laws (Sept. 19, 1995, p. 25533). The committee has addi-
tional jurisdiction (Commerce, now Energy and Commerce, has primary
jurisdiction) over a developmental disabilities assistance and family sup-
port bill (Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1023). The jurisdiction of this committee over
education and vocational rehabilitation does not include those subjects as
they relate to veterans, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Veterans’ Affairs. This committee, and not also the Committees on Over-
sight and Government Reform and House Administration, has jurisdiction
over a bill amending the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to address
only private-sector employees (Oct. 30, 2007, p. 28651).
(f) Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(1) Biomedical research and development.
(2) Consumer affairs and consumer protec-
§ 721. Energy and tion.
Commerce.
(3) Health and health facilities (except

health care supported by payroll deductions).
(4) Interstate energy compacts.
(5) Interstate and foreign commerce gen-
erally.
(6) Exploration, production, storage, supply,
marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy
resources, including all fossil fuels, solar en-
[441]
ergy, and other unconventional or renewable

energy resources.
(7) Conservation of energy resources.
(8) Energy information generally.
(9) The generation and marketing of power
(except by federally chartered or Federal re-
gional power marketing authorities); reli-
ability and interstate transmission of, and
ratemaking for, all power; and siting of gen-
eration facilities (except the installation of
interconnections between Government water-
power projects).
(10) General management of the Depart-
ment of Energy and management and all func-
tions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
mission.
(11) National energy policy generally.
(12) Public health and quarantine.
(13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear en-
ergy industry, including regulation of research
and development reactors and nuclear regu-
latory research.
(14) Regulation of interstate and foreign
communications.
(15) Travel and tourism.
The committee shall have the same jurisdiction
with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities
and of use of nuclear energy as it has with re-
spect to regulation of nonnuclear facilities and of
use of nonnuclear energy.
The committee dates from 1795 (IV, 4096). Effective January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), the name of the committee
was changed from Interstate and Foreign Commerce to Commerce and
Health. Effective January 14, 1975, it was redesignated as Interstate and
[442]
Foreign Commerce (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 20). In the 96th Congress
it was redesignated as Energy and Commerce and given much of its present
jurisdiction, effective January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp.
6405–10; note publication of intercommittee memoranda of understanding).
In the 104th Congress it was redesignated as the Committee on Commerce
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the 107th Congress it
was redesignated again as the Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec.
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
In the 74th Congress the jurisdictional statement of the committee was
amended to include jurisdiction over bills relating to radio, and to transfer
jurisdiction over water transportation, Coast Guard, lifesaving service,
lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and
the Panama Canal to the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries (VII, 1814, 1847), but with the demise of the latter committee in
the 104th Congress, the latter subjects now reside in the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, except that the Com-
mittee on National Security (now Armed Services) has jurisdiction over
the Panama Canal (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the
85th Congress matters relating to the Bureau of Standards, standardiza-
tion of weights and measures, and the metric system (conferred on the
committee by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812),
were transferred to the Committee on Science and Astronautics (now
Science, Space, and Technology) (July 21, 1958, p. 14513). In the Com-
mittee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, the com-
mittee obtained specific jurisdiction over consumer affairs and consumer
protection (subpara. (2)), travel and tourism (subpara. (15)), health and
health facilities, except health care supported by payroll deductions
(subpara. (3)) (a matter formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Ways and Means), and biomedical research and development (subpara.
(1)), and was released of jurisdiction over civil aeronautics to the Com-
mittee on Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infra-
structure), jurisdiction over civil aviation research and development, en-
ergy and environmental research and development, and the National
Weather Service to the Committee on Science and Technology (now Science,
Space, and Technology), and jurisdiction over trading with the enemy to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). In the 95th Congress, when the legislative jurisdiction of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the House was transferred to various
standing committees, this committee was given the same jurisdiction over
nuclear energy as it had over nonnuclear energy and facilities (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70). In the 96th Congress the committee obtained
specific jurisdiction over national energy policy generally (subpara. (11)),
measures relating to exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing,
pricing, and regulation of energy resources (subpara. (6)), measures relat-
ing to conservation of energy resources (subpara. (7)), measures relating
to energy information generally (subpara. (8)), measures relating to the
[443]
generation, marketing, interstate transmission of, and ratemaking for

power as well as the siting of generation facilities, with certain exceptions
(subpara. (9)), interstate energy compacts (subpara. (4)), and measures re-
lating to general management of the Department of Energy and all func-
tions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (subpara. (10)) (H.
Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405–10). In the 104th Congress the commit-
tee’s jurisdiction over inland waterways and railroads (including railroad
labor, retirement, and unemployment) was transferred to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and jurisdiction over measures re-
lating to the commercial application of energy technology was transferred
to the Committee on Science (now Science, Space, and Technology), while
the Committee on Energy and Commerce obtained jurisdiction over regula-
tion of the domestic nuclear energy industry (subpara. (13)) from the Com-
mittee on Natural Resources (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 107th
Congress the committee’s jurisdiction over securities and exchanges was
transferred to the Committee on Financial Services (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The Speaker inserted in the Congressional Record
a memorandum of understanding between the two committees to clarify
the nature of this transfer (Jan. 30, 2001, p. 995), the final two paragraphs
of which no longer provide jurisdictional guidance (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
The committee has the special oversight responsibility under clause 3(e)
of rule X as well as the general oversight responsibility required by clause
2 of rule X. This special oversight responsibility was expanded in the 96th
Congress to include all energy, effective January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549,
Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405–10). In the 104th Congress it was again expanded
to include nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and development in-
cluding the disposal of nuclear waste (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 464), though a conforming change in clause 3 was inadvertently omitted.
The committee formerly reported the river and harbor appropriation bill,
but in 1883 the Committee on Rivers and Harbors was created for that
role (IV, 4096), and since the 66th Congress such appropriations have been
reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
The committee has general jurisdiction over bills affecting domestic and
foreign commerce, except such as may affect the revenue (IV, 4097). It
also has jurisdiction over bills authorizing the construction of marine hos-
pitals and the acquisition of sites therefor (IV, 4110; VII, 1816), the general
subjects of quarantine and the establishment of quarantine stations (IV,
4109), health, spread of leprosy and other contagious diseases, inter-
national congress of hygiene, etc. (IV, 4111). This committee formerly had
jurisdiction over bills proposing construction of bridges across navigable
streams, which now are banned under clause 4 of rule XII if private (see
§ 822, infra; see also General Bridge Act, 33 U.S.C. 525, 533).
Before the 104th Congress the committee considered bills regulating rail-
roads in their interstate commerce relations (IV, 414) and exercised juris-
[444]
Rule X, clause 1 § 721b
diction with the Committees on Education and Labor (now Education and
the Workforce) and Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation
and Infrastructure) over bills providing labor protections to workers in
the transportation industry, including railroad employees (Feb. 24, 1993,
p. 3577). The committee considers bills relating to commercial travelers
as agents of interstate commerce and the branding of articles going into
such commerce (IV, 4115), the prevention of the carriage of indecent and
harmful pictures or literature (IV, 4116), the adulteration and misbranding
of foods and drugs (IV, 4112), and protection of game through prohibition
of interstate transportation (IV, 4117). The committee has jurisdiction over
bills imposing safety standards on motor vehicles purchased by the U.S.
Government (Feb. 16, 1959, p. 2420), bills creating civil remedies for false
advertising or other violations of commercial ethics (June 4, 1962, p. 9601),
and bills to assist financing of the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska (June
7, 1972, p. 19935). The committee had jurisdiction over a bill to reauthorize
the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (ulti-
mately repealed), which was focused on health matters rather than job
training (June 1, 1981, p. 11028; Nov. 3, 1993, p. 27274). This committee
and, in addition, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, have
jurisdiction over the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 1999 (which replaced the above-mentioned Act) as it con-
tained a family support program within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce) (Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1023). In the 94th
Congress, the committee gained jurisdiction over bills amending the Lead-
Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and bills dealing with nursing home
construction as public health matters (June 10, 1975, p. 18009).
(g) Committee on Ethics.

The Code of Official Conduct.
In the 90th Congress the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
§ 721b. Ethics.
was established as a standing committee (H. Res. 418,
Apr. 13, 1967, p. 9425). Its precursor was the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, created in the 89th Congress (H.
Res. 1013, Oct. 19, 1966, pp. 27713–30). At various times in its history,
the legislative jurisdiction of the committee has included jurisdiction over
measures relating to (1) financial disclosure by Members, officers, and em-
ployees of the House (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong., Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8776);
(2) the raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions for candidates
for the House (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470); and (3)
lobbying activities (H. Res. 1031, 91st Cong., July 8, 1970, p. 23141). How-
ever, legislative jurisdiction over measures relating to financial disclosure
was transferred to the Committee on Rules in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70); legislative jurisdiction over measures relating
to campaign contributions for candidates for the House was transferred
to House Administration, and legislative jurisdiction over measures relat-
ing to lobbying activities was removed from the committee (thereby devolv-
[445]
§ 721b Rule X, clause 1
ing on the Committee on the Judiciary) in the 94th Congress (H. Res.
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion
of a redundant undesignated recitation of general and special functions
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 112th Congress it was redesignated
as the Committee on Ethics (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Three rules relating to the official conduct of Members outside the con-
fines of rule XXIII, the ‘‘Code of Official Conduct,’’ are as follows: rule
XXIV, limitations on use of official funds, rule XXV, limitations on outside
earned income and acceptance of gifts, and rule XXVII, disclosure of em-
ployment negotiations.
Under clause 5(a) of rule XIII, the committee is empowered to report
as privileged resolutions recommending action by the House of Representa-
tives with respect to the official conduct of an individual Member, officer,
or employee of the House.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction, the committee has the general
oversight responsibility set forth in clause 2(b) and the additional functions
of conducting the investigations and making the reports and recommenda-
tions required by clause 5 of rule XIII or by resolution of the House (see,
e.g., H. Res. 252, 95th Cong., Feb. 9, 1977, pp. 3966–75, directing investiga-
tion of gifts from the Korean Government; H. Res. 1042, 94th Cong., Feb.
16, 1976, pp. 3158–61, directing investigation of unauthorized publication
of report of Select Committee on Intelligence; and H. Res. 608, 96th Cong.,
Mar. 27, 1980, pp. 6995–98, relating to ‘‘Abscam’’).
The committee has investigated roll call procedures in the House and
recommended installation of a modernized voting system (June 19, 1969,
p. 16629). In the 95th Congress the committee was authorized by section
515 of Public Law 95–105 to act as the ‘‘employing agency’’ for the House
of Representatives under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and the
committee promulgated regulations under that statute concerning accept-
ance of foreign gifts and decorations by Members and employees (Jan. 23,
1978, p. 452). In the 96th Congress the committee was assigned as addi-
tional responsibilities the functions designated in title I of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95–521) relating to the administration of
government ethics laws as they apply to Members, officers, and employees
of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 7). In the 102d Congress those
responsibilities were enlarged to include the functions designated in title
V of the Act and the specified sections of title 5, United States Code (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).
The committee has compiled statutory and rule-based ethical standards
in the House Ethics Manual (110th Cong., 2d Sess.). In the Manual, the
committee incorporates its advisory opinions issued under clause 3(a)(4)
of rule XI, together with advisory opinions issued by the former Select
Committee on Ethics, in its discussions of various ethical issues, including
gifts, outside income, financial disclosure, staff rights and duties, official
[446]
Rule X, clause 1 § 721c–§ 722
allowances and franking, casework considerations, campaign financing and

practices, and involvement with official and unofficial organizations.
In the 95th Congress, the House established a Select Committee on Eth-
§ 721c. Former Select
ics and granted it exclusive legislative jurisdiction over
Committees on Ethics. bills that incorporated into permanent law provisions
of House rules addressing financial ethics of Members,
officers, and employees (H. Res. 383, Mar. 9, 1977, pp. 6811–16). The Select
Committee was also granted jurisdiction to promulgate implementing regu-
lations and to issue advisory opinions. The resolution creating the Select
Committee provided that it would expire on December 31, 1977, but the
committee and its functions ultimately were extended through the comple-
tion of its official business (H. Res. 871, Oct. 31, 1977, p. 35957).
In the 105th Congress a new subparagraph (3) was added at the end
of former clause 4(e) of rule X to establish a Select Committee on Ethics
only to resolve an inquiry originally undertaken by the standing Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics) in the 104th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The Select Committee filed one report to the House
(H. Rept. 105–1, H. Res. 31, Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393).
For Office of Congressional Ethics, see § 1125h, infra.
(h) Committee on Financial Services.

(1) Banks and banking, including deposit in-
surance and Federal monetary policy.
(2) Economic stabilization, defense produc-
§ 722. Financial tion, renegotiation, and control of
Services.
the price of commodities, rents,
and services.
(3) Financial aid to commerce and industry
(other than transportation).
(4) Insurance generally.
(5) International finance.
(6) International financial and monetary or-
ganizations.
(7) Money and credit, including currency
and the issuance of notes and redemption
thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage
thereof; valuation and revaluation of the dol-
lar.
(8) Public and private housing.
[447]
(9) Securities and exchanges.

(10) Urban development.
This committee was established in 1865 as the Committee on Banking
and Currency (IV, 4082). In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,
effective January 3, 1975, its name was changed to Banking, Currency
and Housing (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 95th
Congress its name was changed to Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70). In the 104th Congress its name was
changed to Banking and Financial Services (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). In the 107th Congress its name was changed to Financial
Services (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
The committee was given much of its present jurisdiction in the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by which it absorbed the
jurisdiction of the former Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures
(created in 1864) (IV, 4090), except jurisdiction over the standardization
of weights and measures and the metric system was given to the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and was later transferred to the Com-
mittee on Science and Astronautics (now Science, Space, and Technology)
in the 85th Congress (H. Res. 580, July 21, 1958, p. 14513). In the 92d
Congress jurisdiction over the impact on the economy of tax-exempt foun-
dations and charitable trusts was transferred from the Subcommittee on
Foundations of the Select Committee on Small Business, along with all
that subcommittee’s files, to this committee (H. Res. 320, Apr. 27, 1971,
p. 12081). Before the end of the 93d Congress, the committee had legislative
jurisdiction over the problems of small business under its general jurisdic-
tion over financial aid to commerce and industry; but with the adoption
of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
that jurisdiction was transferred to the standing Committee on Small Busi-
ness, the permanent Select Committee on Small Business was abolished,
and this committee was specifically given jurisdiction over Federal mone-
tary policy, money and credit, urban development, economic stabilization,
defense production, and renegotiation (the latter matter formerly within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means), international fi-
nance, and international financial and monetary organizations (formerly
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs), while jurisdic-
tion over the Commodity Credit Corporation was transferred to the Com-
mittee on Agriculture, jurisdiction over export controls and international
economic policy to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, jurisdiction over con-
struction of nursing home facilities to what is now the Committee on En-
ergy and Commerce, and jurisdiction over urban mass transportation to
what is now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 104th Congress subpara-
graphs (2) and (3) were added (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the
[448]
107th Congress jurisdiction over securities and exchanges was transferred

from the Committee on Energy and Commerce to this committee (sec. 2(d),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). As a result of the new jurisdiction of the
Committee on Financial Services over securities and exchanges, its former
jurisdiction over matters relating to bank capital markets activities and
depository institutions securities activities were deleted as redundant (sec.
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). In the 107th Congress this committee
also received jurisdiction over insurance generally (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The Speaker inserted in the Congressional Record
a memorandum of understanding between this committee and the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce to clarify these jurisdictional changes
(Jan. 30, 2001, p. 995), the final two paragraphs of which no longer provide
jurisdictional guidance (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71). A technical change to subpara-
graph (6) was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 2003, p. 7).
The committee has reported on subjects relating to the strengthening
of public credit, issues of notes, and State taxation and redemption thereof
(IV, 4084), propositions to maintain the parity of the money of the United
States (IV, 4089; VII, 1792), the issue of silver certificates as currency
(IV, 4087, 4088), national banks and current deposits of public money (IV,
4083; VII, 1790), the incorporation of an international bank (IV, 4086),
subjects relating to the Freedman’s Bank (IV, 4085), and Federal Reserve
System, Farm Loan Act, home loan bills, stabilization of the dollar, War
Finance Corporation, Federal Reserve bank buildings (VII, 1793, 1795).
The committee has jurisdiction over bills providing consolidation of grant-
in-aid programs for urban development (Mar. 18, 1970, p. 7887), bills pro-
viding for U.S. participation in the International Development Association
(Mar. 9, 1960, p. 5046), bills to authorize GSA to acquire land in D.C.
for transfer to the International Monetary Fund (May 1, 1962, p. 7428),
bills relating to flood insurance (Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38701), and over an execu-
tive communication proposing regulations for college housing programs
(notwithstanding that the requirement for such regulations was contained
in higher education legislation reported from the Committee on Education
and Labor) (June 15, 1982, p. 13638).
(i) Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(1) Relations of the United States with for-
§ 723. Foreign Affairs. eign nations generally.
(2) Acquisition of land and buildings for em-
bassies and legations in foreign countries.
(3) Establishment of boundary lines between
the United States and foreign nations.
[449]
(4) Export controls, including nonprolifera-

tion of nuclear technology and nuclear hard-
ware.
(5) Foreign loans.
(6) International commodity agreements
(other than those involving sugar), including
all agreements for cooperation in the export of
nuclear technology and nuclear hardware.
(7) International conferences and con-
gresses.
(8) International education.
(9) Intervention abroad and declarations of
war.
(10) Diplomatic service.
(11) Measures to foster commercial inter-
course with foreign nations and to safeguard
American business interests abroad.
(12) International economic policy.
(13) Neutrality.
(14) Protection of American citizens abroad
and expatriation.
(15) The American National Red Cross.
(16) Trading with the enemy.
(17) United Nations organizations.
This committee was established in 1822 (IV, 4162), and from 1885 to
1920 had authority to report appropriations. In the 94th Congress the name
of the committee was changed from Foreign Affairs to International Rela-
tions (H. Res. 163, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7343). In the 96th Congress it was
changed back to Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 89, Feb. 5, 1979, p. 1848). In
the 104th Congress the name was again changed to International Relations
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the 110th Congress it
was changed back to Foreign Affairs (sec. 213(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007,
p. 19).
In addition to the jurisdiction vested in the committee by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the Committee Reform Amend-
ments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, gave the committee jurisdiction
[450]
over measures relating to: international economic policy (subpara. (12))

and export controls (subpara. (4)), matters formerly within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking and Currency (now Financial Services); inter-
national commodity agreements other than those relating to sugar
(subpara. (6)), formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agri-
culture; trading with the enemy (subpara. (16)), formerly within the juris-
diction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (now Energy
and Commerce); and international education (subpara. (8)); while transfer-
ring jurisdiction over international financial and monetary organizations
to the Committee on Banking and Currency (now Financial Services), and
jurisdiction over international fishing agreements to the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (now Natural Resources) (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). When the legislative jurisdiction of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the House was abolished in
the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70), the committee was
given jurisdiction over nonproliferation of nuclear technology and hardware
(subpara. (4)), and over international agreements on nuclear exports
(subpara. (6)). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion of a redun-
dant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight functions
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The committee has broad jurisdiction over foreign relations, including
boundary lines between the United States and foreign nations, bridges
and dams on international waters (IV, 4166; see also the ‘‘General Bridge
Act,’’ 33 U.S.C. 525, 533), the protection of American citizens abroad and
expatriation (IV, 4169; VII, 1883), extradition with foreign nations, inter-
national arbitration, relating to violations of neutrality (IV, 4178a), inter-
national conferences and congresses (IV, 4177; VII, 1884), the incorporation
of the American National Red Cross and protection of its insignia (IV,
4173), intervention abroad and declarations of war (IV, 4164; VII 1880),
affairs of the consular service, including acquisition of land and buildings
for legations in foreign capitals (IV, 4163; VII, 1879), creation of courts
of the United States in foreign countries (IV, 4167), treaty regulations as
to protection of fur seals (IV, 4170), matters relating to the Philippines
(see 60 Stat. 315), and measures establishing a District of Columbia cor-
poration to support private American organizations engaged in communica-
tions with foreign nations (June 21, 1971, p. 21062).
The committee also has considered measures for fostering commercial
intercourse with foreign nations and for safeguarding American business
interests abroad (IV, 4175), and even the subjects of commercial treaties
and reciprocal arrangements (IV, 4174), although in later practice the Com-
mittee on Ways and Means has considered such matters (IV, 4021). The
committee has exercised general but not exclusive jurisdiction over legisla-
tion relating to claims affecting international relations (IV, 4168; VII,
1882). Pursuant to its jurisdiction over international education, the com-
mittee (and not the Committee on Education and the Workforce) has exer-
[451]
§ 723a–§ 723b Rule X, clause 1
cised jurisdiction over bills establishing scholarship programs for foreign

students (May 10, 1988, p. 10305). The committee has jurisdiction over
a communication from the President notifying the House, consistent with
the War Powers Resolution, of the deployment abroad of U.S. armed forces
to participate in an embargo against another nation (Nov. 4, 1993, p.
27393).
The special oversight function of the committee set forth in clause 3(f)
of rule X (current clause 3(g) of rule X) was made effective January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
(j) Committee on Homeland Security.

(1) Overall homeland security policy.
§ 723a. Homeland
Security.
(2) Organization and administration of the

Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Functions of the Department of Home-
land Security relating to the following:
(A) Border and port security (except immi-
gration policy and non-border enforcement).
(B) Customs (except customs revenue).
(C) Integration, analysis, and dissemina-
tion of homeland security information.
(D) Domestic preparedness for and collec-
tive response to terrorism.
(E) Research and development.
(F) Transportation security.
This committee was established in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(a), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). For debate (and material submitted during debate)
that may edify the reader on the jurisdictional issues surrounding the new
committee, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60 0962. The Speaker announced that
the referral of measures in the 108th Congress to the Select Committee
on Homeland Security would not constitute precedent for referral to this
committee (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
In the 107th Congress the House established a Select Committee on
§ 723b. Former Select
Homeland Security (H. Res. 449, June 19, 2002, p.
Committees on 10722). Its mission was to develop recommendations
Homeland Security. on such matters that relate to the establishment of a
department of homeland security as may be referred
to it by the Speaker and on recommendations submitted to it by standing
[452]
committees to which the Speaker referred a bill establishing the depart-

ment and to report its recommendation to the House on such bill. It was
terminated after final disposition of the specified bill (Nov. 25, 2002, p.
23433). In the 108th Congress the House reestablished a Select Committee
on Homeland Security (sec. 4, H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11). Its mission
was to develop recommendations on such matters that relate to the Home-
land Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–296) as may be referred to it by the
Speaker; to conduct oversight of laws, programs, and Government activities
relating to homeland security; to conduct a study of the operation and
implementation of the Rules of the House, including rule X, with respect
to homeland security; and to report its recommendations to the House by
bill or otherwise on matters referred to it by the Speaker and to report
its recommendations on changes to House rules to the Committee on Rules.
(k) Committee on House Administration.

(1) Appropriations from accounts for com-
§ 724. House mittee salaries and expenses (ex-
Administration.
cept for the Committee on Appro-
priations); House Information Resources; and
allowance and expenses of Members, Dele-
gates, the Resident Commissioner, officers,
and administrative offices of the House.
(2) Auditing and settling of all accounts de-
scribed in subparagraph (1).
(3) Employment of persons by the House, in-
cluding staff for Members, Delegates, the Resi-
dent Commissioner, and committees; and re-
porters of debates, subject to rule VI.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11),
the Library of Congress, including manage-
ment thereof; the House Library; statuary and
pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of
art for the Capitol; the Botanic Garden; and
purchase of books and manuscripts.
(5) The Smithsonian Institution and the in-
corporation of similar institutions (except as
provided in paragraph (r)(11)).
[453]
(6) Expenditure of accounts described in

subparagraph (1).
(7) Franking Commission.
(8) Printing and correction of the Congres-
sional Record.
(9) Accounts of the House generally.
(10) Assignment of office space for Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and
committees.
(11) Disposition of useless executive papers.
(12) Election of the President, Vice Presi-
dent, Members, Senators, Delegates, or the
Resident Commissioner; corrupt practices; con-
tested elections; credentials and qualifications;
and Federal elections generally.
(13) Services to the House, including the
House Restaurant, parking facilities, and ad-
ministration of the House Office Buildings and
of the House wing of the Capitol.
(14) Travel of Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner.
(15) Raising, reporting, and use of campaign
contributions for candidates for office of Rep-
resentative, of Delegate, and of Resident Com-
missioner.
(16) Compensation, retirement, and other
benefits of the Members, Delegates, the Resi-
dent Commissioner, officers, and employees of
Congress.
This committee was created as the Committee on House Administration
on January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the Committees on Accounts (created in
1803) (IV, 4328), Enrolled Bills (created in 1789) (IV, 4350), Disposition
of Executive Papers (created in 1889) (IV, 4419), Printing (created in 1846),
[454]
Elections (created in 1794 and divided into three committees in 1895) (IV,
4019), Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Con-
gress (created in 1893) (IV, 4299), and Memorials (created January 3, 1929,
VII, 2080).
The committee was redesignated as the Committee on House Oversight
in the 104th Congress, obtaining from the former Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service jurisdiction over the Franking Commission (also known
as the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards) in subpara-
graph (7), while transferring to the Committee on Resources (now Natural
Resources) jurisdiction over erection of monuments to the memory of indi-
viduals (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). References in subpara-
graphs (1) and (2) to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ were eliminated without chang-
ing the committee’s jurisdiction over the accounts that the fund comprised.
In the 105th Congress subparagraph (1) was amended to effect a technical
correction (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). In the 106th Congress the
committee was redesignated House Administration, and the House recodi-
fied its rules to effect clerical and stylistic changes, including the deletion
of a redundant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight
functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 107th Congress the commit-
tee’s responsibilities with respect to enrolled bills (which were set forth
in former clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X) were transferred to the Clerk (see
clause 2(d)(2) of rule II) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
The Committee has jurisdiction over measures relating to the House
Restaurant (2 U.S.C. 2041), which was first under the
§ 725. House facilities.
jurisdiction of the former Committee on Accounts, then
under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol (H. Res. 590, 76th
Cong., Sept. 5, 1940, p. 11552, as made permanent law by P.L. 76–812),
and then the Select Committee on the House Restaurant (H. Res. 472,
91st Cong., July 10, 1969, p. 19080; H. Res. 111, 93d Cong., Feb. 7, 1973,
p. 3680), which was not reestablished after the 93d Congress.
1975, the committee obtained jurisdiction over parking facilities of the
House, a matter formerly assigned to a select committee (subpara. (13))
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 94th Congress
the committee was given jurisdiction over campaign contributions to can-
didates for the House, a matter formerly within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (subpara. (15)),
and over compensation, retirement, and other benefits of Members, officers,
and employees of Congress (subpara. (16)) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p.
20).
The committee has jurisdiction over resolutions authorizing committees
to employ additional professional and clerical personnel (Feb. 7, 1966, p.
2373). The Committee has supervisory authority over the House barber
shops, beauty shops, and House Information Resources.
[455]
§ 727–§ 729 Rule X, clause 1
Under the Reorganization Act the committee has jurisdiction over some
§ 727. Library.
of the subjects formerly within the jurisdiction of the
Joint Committee on the Library, such as matters relat-
ing to the Library of Congress and the House Library, statuary and pic-
tures, acceptance or purchase of works of art for the Capitol, the Botanic
Gardens, management of the Library of Congress, purchase of books and
manuscripts, matters relating to the Smithsonian Institution, and the in-
corporation of similar institutions. Excepted are measures relating to the
construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of the buildings and
grounds of the Botanic Gardens, the Library of Congress, and the Smithso-
nian Institution, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure). The House Mem-
bers of the Joint Committee on the Library, provided for by law (2 U.S.C.
132b), are elected by resolution each Congress.
The Committee has jurisdiction over matters relating to printing and
correction of the Congressional Record, formerly within
Record. the jurisdiction of the erstwhile Committee on Printing.
The House Members of the Joint Committee on Print-
ing, provided for by law (44 U.S.C. 101), are elected by resolution each
Congress.
The committee has jurisdiction over measures relating to the election
of the President, Vice President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices;
contested elections; credentials and qualifications; Federal elections gen-
erally, and the electoral count, which formerly was within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President, and Rep-
resentatives in Congress (IV, 4303).
The committee’s former responsibility to report on Members’ travel was
supplanted by the function of providing policy direction to and oversight
of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and Inspec-
tor General (sec. 10, H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; sec. 201(e), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463; see rule II and § 752, infra). In the 107th
Congress the committee retained the responsibility to provide policy direc-
tion to and oversight of the Inspector General but retained only oversight
of the remaining officers (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(l) Committee on the Judiciary.

(1) The judiciary and judicial proceedings,
§ 729. Judiciary. civil and criminal.
(2) Administrative practice and procedure.
(3) Apportionment of Representatives.
(4) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and
counterfeiting.
(5) Civil liberties.
[456]
(6) Constitutional amendments.

(7) Criminal law enforcement.
(8) Federal courts and judges, and local
courts in the Territories and possessions.
(9) Immigration policy and non-border en-
forcement.
(10) Interstate compacts generally.
(11) Claims against the United States.
(12) Meetings of Congress; attendance of
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Com-
missioner; and their acceptance of incompat-
ible offices.
(13) National penitentiaries.
(14) Patents, the Patent and Trademark Of-
fice, copyrights, and trademarks.
(15) Presidential succession.
(16) Protection of trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
(17) Revision and codification of the Stat-
utes of the United States.
(18) State and territorial boundary lines.
(19) Subversive activities affecting the in-
§ 730. Internal ternal security of the United
Security.
States.
This committee dates from 1813 (IV, 4054). The essential jurisdiction
defined in the rule was made effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), and combined the
Committees on Revision of Laws (created 1868, IV, 4293), Patents (created
in 1837) (IV, 4254), Immigration and Naturalization (created in 1893) (IV,
4309), Claims (created in 1794) (IV, 4262), and War Claims (created in
1883) (IV, 4269). By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
January 3, 1975, the committee’s jurisdiction over holidays and celebra-
tions was transferred to the former Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service (now Oversight and Government Reform) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 94th Congress the Committee on Internal
Security was abolished and jurisdiction over communist and other subver-
[457]
sive activities affecting the internal security of the United States was trans-
ferred to this committee (subpara. (18), now (19)) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975,
p. 20), though an accompanying provision for the transfer of records and
staff of the Internal Security Committee to the Judiciary Committee was
deleted as obsolete in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–
70), and the specific reference to communism was deleted as unnecessary
in the 104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). The
104th Congress also inserted ‘‘the judiciary’’ in subparagraph (1); added
subparagraph (2) for clarification; combined former subparagraphs (6) and
(9) in a new subparagraph (7) (now (8)); and combined former subpara-
graphs (13) and (14) in a new subparagraph (13) (now (14)) (sec. 202(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including an
update of a reference to the Patent and Trademark Office (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th Congress the House established the Committee
on Homeland Security with jurisdiction over certain functions of the De-
partment of Homeland Security that resulted in a conforming change to
subparagraph (9) (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). For debate
(and material submitted during debate) that may edify the reader on the
jurisdictional issues surrounding the creation of the Committee on Home-
land Security, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60 0962. In the 109th Congress
the House added subparagraph (7) (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 42).
Under subparagraph (15) the committee has jurisdiction over Presi-
dential nominations to fill vacancies in the Office of Vice President, sub-
mitted pursuant to the 25th amendment to the Constitution (Oct. 13, 1973,
p. 34032; Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29366). The committee has reported Articles
of Impeachment of the President (Aug. 20, 1974, pp. 29219–81; Dec. 17,
1998, p. 27819). If the House has voted to impeach, members of the com-
mittee have been appointed as managers on the part of the House in pre-
senting the charges to the Senate for trial (H. Res. 501, 99th Cong., July
22, 1986, p. 17306; H. Res. 511, 100th Cong., Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223; H.
Res. 12, 101st Cong., Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan.
6, 1999, p. 15).
The Committee on the Judiciary considers charges against judges of the
Federal courts (IV, 4062), legislative propositions relating to the service
of the Department of Justice (IV, 4067), bills relating to local courts in
the District of Columbia, Alaska, and the territories (IV, 4068), the estab-
lishment of a court of patent appeals (IV, 4075), relations of labor to courts
and corporations (IV, 4072), crimes, penalties, extradition (IV, 4069; VII,
1747), construction and management of national penitentiaries (IV, 4070),
matters relating to trusts (VII, 1764), claims of States against the United
States (IV, 4080), general legislation relating to international and other
claims (IV, 4078, 4079, 4081), including measures extending the terms
of members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (Nov. 14, 1991,
p. 32130), bills relating to the flag (IV, 4055), bankruptcy (IV, 4065), re-
[458]
moval of political disabilities (IV, 4058), prohibition of traffic in intoxicating

liquors (IV, 4061; VII, 1773), mutiny and willful destruction of vessels (IV,
4145), counterfeiting (IV, 4071; VII, 1753), settlement of State and terri-
torial boundary lines (VII, 1768), meeting of Congress and attendance of
Members and their acceptance of incompatible offices (IV, 4077).
The committee also has jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing
amendments to the Constitution (IV, 4056; VII, 1779). Although the com-
mittee has historically exercised jurisdiction over lobbying activities, the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) was assigned
such jurisdiction during a brief period (H. Res. 1031, 91st Cong., July 8,
1970, p. 23141; H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20).
The committee also has jurisdiction over bills regulating the authority
of States to impose taxes on interstate commerce (June 18, 1959, p. 11317),
imposing conflict of interest standards and civil and criminal penalties
relating thereto on government employees (Feb. 25, 1960, p. 3484), estab-
lishing an academy of criminal justice (Apr. 5, 1965, p. 6822), eliminating
racketeering in the interstate sale of cigarettes (Feb. 9, 1972, p. 3429),
providing worker’s compensation for non-Federal firefighters killed during
civil disorder (May 6, 1968, p. 11798) or to non-Federal policemen and
firemen (Dec. 12, 1975, p. 40204), authorizing the Attorney General to
consent to a modification of a certain trust on behalf of the Library of
Congress (Aug. 17, 1959, p. 16051), amending an omnibus pension act to
increase the amount of pension granted a certain class of persons (Feb.
15, 1960, p. 2523), and imposing criminal sanctions under the Controlled
Substances Act (Nov. 14, 1983, p. 32457). The committee has sole jurisdic-
tion over the Legal Services Corporation (Nov. 19, 1975, p. 37288). The
committee has exercised jurisdiction, with the Committee on Education
and Labor (now Education and the Workforce), over bills to amend the
Walsh-Healey Act regarding hours of work under government contracts
(May 15, 1985, p. 11946). This committee, and not the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure), exer-
cised jurisdiction over a bill extending the authority for the Marshal of
the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to protect the Chief
Justice, Associate Justices, officers, and employees of the Supreme Court
beyond its building and grounds (Nov. 22, 1993, p. 32074). The Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and not this committee, has juris-
diction over pay adjustments for administrative law judges (July 31, 1991,
p. 20677; June 10, 1999, p. 12435). The Committee on Natural Resources,
and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill to designate an immigra-
tion museum within a facility of the National Park Service (July 8, 2004,
p. 5348).
The committee has the general oversight responsibility set forth in clause
2(b).
[459]
(m) Committee on Natural Resources.

(1) Fisheries and wildlife, including re-
§ 731. Natural search, restoration, refuges, and
Resources.
conservation.
(2) Forest reserves and national parks cre-
ated from the public domain.
(3) Forfeiture of land grants and alien own-
ership, including alien ownership of mineral
lands.
(4) Geological Survey.
(5) International fishing agreements.
(6) Interstate compacts relating to appor-
tionment of waters for irrigation purposes.
(7) Irrigation and reclamation, including
water supply for reclamation projects and
easements of public lands for irrigation
projects; and acquisition of private lands when
necessary to complete irrigation projects.
(8) Native Americans generally, including
the care and allotment of Native American
lands and general and special measures relat-
ing to claims that are paid out of Native
American funds.
(9) Insular possessions of the United States
generally (except those affecting the revenue
and appropriations).
(10) Military parks and battlefields, national
cemeteries administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, parks within the District of Co-
lumbia, and the erection of monuments to the
memory of individuals.
(11) Mineral land laws and claims and en-
tries thereunder.
[460]
(12) Mineral resources of public lands.

(13) Mining interests generally.
(14) Mining schools and experimental sta-
tions.
(15) Marine affairs, including coastal zone
management (except for measures relating to
oil and other pollution of navigable waters).
(16) Oceanography.
(17) Petroleum conservation on public lands
and conservation of the radium supply in the
United States.
(18) Preservation of prehistoric ruins and
objects of interest on the public domain.
(19) Public lands generally, including entry,
easements, and grazing thereon.
(20) Relations of the United States with Na-
tive Americans and Native American tribes.
(21) Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline (except rate-
making).
The Committee on Public Lands was created in 1805 (IV, 4194). Its name
has since been changed to Interior and Insular Affairs (Feb. 2, 1951, p.
883); to Natural Resources (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49); to Resources
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464); and back to Natural Resources
(sec. 214(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19).
The core of the jurisdiction reflected in this paragraph was assigned
to the committee effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which consolidated in this com-
mittee the jurisdictions of the former Committees on Mines and Mining
(created in 1865) (IV, 4223), Insular Affairs (created in 1899) (IV, 4213),
Irrigation and Reclamation (created in 1893) (IV, 4307), Indian Affairs
(created in 1821) (IV, 4204), and Territories (created in 1825) (IV, 4208),
though vesting the subject of welfare of miners, formerly under the jurisdic-
tion of the Committee on Mines and Mining, in the Committee on Edu-
cation and Labor (now Education and the Workforce). Until the Reorga-
nization Act, military parks, battlefields, and national cemeteries were
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Military Affairs. Jurisdiction
over cemeteries of the United States in which veterans may be buried,
except those administered by the Secretary of the Interior, was transferred
[461]
to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in the 90th Congress (H. Res. 241,
Oct. 20, 1967).
In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975, the committee gained jurisdiction over parks within the District of
Columbia, formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure)
(subpara. (10)), and lost specific jurisdiction over Indian education and
over Hawaii and Alaska, generally (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). By that same resolution, the committee was given special over-
sight functions in clause 3.
The 104th Congress expanded the jurisdiction of the committee by: add-
ing subparagraphs (1), (5), (15), and (16) to reflect the transfer of those
matters from the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries;
inserting the subject of monuments in memory of individuals in subpara-
graph (10) to reflect the transfer of that matter from the Committee on
House Administration; adding subparagraph (21), an exceptional treat-
ment of pipeline jurisdiction otherwise vested in the Committee on Trans-
portation and Infrastructure; and deleting the subject of regulation of the
domestic nuclear energy industry to reflect the transfer of that jurisdiction,
which this committee had acquired when the 95th Congress abolished the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70)
and which it shared with the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 464). At the same time, the statements of special oversight func-
tions formerly found in this paragraph and in former paragraph (e) of this
clause were adjusted to reflect the transfer of nonmilitary nuclear energy
and research and development, including disposal of nuclear waste, from
this committee to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, though con-
forming changes in former paragraphs (e) and (h) of clause 3 were inadvert-
ently omitted. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The committee reports on subjects relating to the mineral resources of
the public lands (IV, 4202), forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership
(IV, 4201), validation of certain conveyances of erstwhile public lands by
a railway company (July 11, 1995, p. 18397), public lands of Alaska (IV,
4196), forest reserves created out of the public domain (IV, 4197, 4199),
including measures relating to criminal trespass provisions applying only
within national forests created from the public domain (July 18, 1977, p.
23434); admission of States (IV, 4208); preservation of prehistoric ruins
and objects of interest on the public domain (IV, 4199); and various classes
of land claims (IV, 4203). The committee also has jurisdiction over the
following bills: to dispose of proceeds from oil shale on public lands (other
than naval oil shale reserves) (Aug. 3, 1967, p. 21179); to exclude certain
lands in the Outer Continental Shelf from mineral leasing provisions of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (May 16, 1963, p. 8777); to reinstate
a U.S. oil and gas lease (Aug. 5, 1959, p. 15190); to address U.S. claims
[462]
to lands along the Colorado River forming State boundaries (June 28, 1967,
p. 17738); to designate national forest lands created from the public domain
as wilderness (May 6, 1969, p. 11459); to include additional units in the
Missouri River Basin project (Sept. 8, 1959, p. 18587); to establish a com-
mission on development of Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. as a national his-
toric site (Oct. 21, 1965, p. 27803); to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a feasibility investigation of potential water resource develop-
ment (May 1, 1975, p. 12764); to establish a commission to consider the
creation of a (Hudson) River compact (July 21, 1975, p. 23653); to name
a building constructed as part of a Federal recreation area (June 8, 1988,
p. 13803); to address the siting on Federal park land of an established
national memorial (Sept. 24, 1991, p. 23731); (with the Committee on Agri-
culture) to exchange a Federal tree nursery for certain State mining pat-
ents touching a public domain (western) forest (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23193);
and to transfer interest in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration fisheries research laboratory (Oct. 1, 2002, p. 18796). The Com-
mittee on National Security (now Armed Services), and not this committee,
has jurisdiction over the transfer of military property to a State to be des-
ignated by the State as a wilderness area (Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32627). The
Committee on Agriculture, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over
the designation of an agricultural research center (May 14, 1996, p. 11070).
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, and not this committee,
has jurisdiction over a bill amending the Native American Programs Act
of 1974 (an Indian education matter) (Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23967). This com-
mittee, and not the Committee on Agriculture, has jurisdiction over a bill
to convey land that is part of a National Forest created from the public
domain (Mar. 23, 2004, p. 4926). This committee, and not the Committee
on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction over a bill to designate an immigration
museum within a facility of the National Park Service (July 8, 2004, p.
14755). This committee, and not the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, has jurisdiction over a bill addressing a federal water
project operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (June 25, 2007, p. 17128).
The authority of the committee to report as privileged bills for the for-
feiture of land grants to railroad and other corporations, preventing specu-
lation in the public lands, for the preservation of the public lands for the
benefit of actual and bona fide settlers, and for the admission of new States
was eliminated in the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
(n) Committee on Oversight and Govern-

ment Reform.
(1) Federal civil service, including intergov-
§ 732. Oversight and ernmental personnel; and the sta-
Government Reform.
tus of officers and employees of
[463]
the United States, including their compensa-

tion, classification, and retirement.
(2) Municipal affairs of the District of Co-
lumbia in general (other than appropriations).
(3) Federal paperwork reduction.
(4) Government management and account-
ing measures generally.
(5) Holidays and celebrations.
(6) Overall economy, efficiency, and manage-
ment of government operations and activities,
including Federal procurement.
(7) National archives.
(8) Population and demography generally,
including the Census.
(9) Postal service generally, including trans-
portation of the mails.
(10) Public information and records.
(11) Relationship of the Federal Government
to the States and municipalities generally.
(12) Reorganizations in the executive branch
of the Government.
In the 82d Congress the name of this committee was changed from Ex-
penditures in the Executive Departments to Government Operations (July
3, 1952, p. 9217). In the 104th Congress it was changed to Government
Reform and Oversight (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464), in
the 106th Congress to Government Reform (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47), and in the 110th Congress to Oversight and Government Reform (sec.
215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19). The former Committee on Expendi-
tures in the Executive Departments was established December 5, 1927
(VII, 2041), and took the place of 11 separate committees on expenditures
in the several executive departments. The first of these committees was
established in 1816, and others were added as new departments were cre-
ated (IV, 4315). They reported bills relating to the efficiency and integrity
of the public service (IV, 4320) and creation and abolition of offices (IV,
4318).
In addition to the jurisdiction vested in the Committee by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the Committee Reform Amend-
[464]
ments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, assigned the committee jurisdic-

tion over measures relating to the overall economy and efficiency of Govern-
ment operations and activities, including Federal procurement, intergov-
ernmental relationships, and general revenue sharing (the latter from the
Committee on Ways and Means was stricken from the jurisdictional state-
ment of this committee in the 104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464), and the National Archives (from the former Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). In the 104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 464), the committee assumed the jurisdictions of the former Committee
on the District of Columbia (subpara. (2)) and the former Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service except that relating to the Franking Commis-
sion (subparas. (1), (5), (8), and (9)); and subparagraphs (3) and (10) were
added to clarify existing jurisdiction. At the same time the committee’s
jurisdiction over measures relating to off-budget treatment of agencies or
programs, which had been added by the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177), was transferred to the Committee
on the Budget. Three rereferrals from this committee to the Committee
on the Budget marked this migration of off-budget treatment jurisdiction:
(1) the Committee on the Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill exclud-
ing from the budget the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (al-
though this committee retains programmatic jurisdiction over that Fund);
(2) the Committee on the Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill exclud-
ing from the budget the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Mainte-
nance Trust Fund (although the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure retains programmatic jurisdiction); and (3) the Committee on
the Budget has secondary jurisdiction over a bill amending title 49 of the
United States Code and providing off-budget treatment for the Highway
Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Dec. 6, 1995, p.
35572). The committee was also released from jurisdiction over measures
relating to exemptions from executive orders sequestering budget author-
ity, which had been added by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit.
XIII, P.L. 101–508). In the 105th Congress any residual jurisdiction over
budget process was transferred to the Committee on the Budget (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The 104th Congress assigned the committee its
responsibilities to coordinate committee oversight plans under clause 2(d)
(sec. 203(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). In the 104th Congress the
committee was also given the responsibility to consider and report rec-
ommendations concerning alternatives to commemorative legislation, al-
though no such report was made to the House (sec. 216(b), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 468). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[465]
The committee has exercised jurisdiction over bills: waiving Reorganiza-

tion Plans to establish the Rural Electrification Administration as an inde-
pendent agency and transferring certain functions thereto (Mar. 19, 1959,
p. 4692); establishing a Commission on Population Growth (Sept. 23, 1969,
p. 26568); establishing a Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-
Speaking Americans (Nov. 24, 1969, p. 35509); providing payment of travel
costs for Federal employment applicants (Feb. 15, 1967, p. 3466); and a
bill to rename an existing post office building (Aug. 4, 1995, p. 22085;
Oct. 1, 1998, p. 22933), even if the post office building also houses a court-
house (Sept. 14, 2000, p. 18054). The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a measure
redesignating a general-purpose Federal building as a post office (Apr. 24,
1997, p. 22085). The committee has exercised jurisdiction over counter-
cyclical programs of revenue-sharing grants to State and local govern-
ments, such as that contained in Title II of the Public Works Employment
Act of 1976 (Feb. 1, 1977, p. 3057). The committee shares jurisdiction over
a bill to facilitate the reorganization of an agency by instituting a separa-
tion pay program to encourage eligible employees to voluntarily resign or
retire (Aug. 2, 1993, p. 18161). The committee has jurisdiction over a bill
explicitly waiving the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
and directing the Administrator of General Services to convey excess real
property (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23186). This committee, and not the Committee
on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction over a bill authorizing a pay adjustment
for administrative law judges (July 31, 1991, p. 20677; June 10, 1999,
p. 12435).
The specific subpoena authority conferred upon the committee in the
standing rules on February 10, 1947 (p. 942) was superseded by the general
conferral of subpoena authority on all committees in clause 2(m) of rule
XI. The committee may authorize the taking of depositions pursuant to
subpoena (clause 4(c)(3) of rule X). By the Committee Reform Amendments
of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, the committee was given the general
function under clause 4(c)(1) of examining and reporting upon reports of
the Comptroller General, evaluating laws reorganizing the legislative and
executive branches, and studying intergovernmental relationships domes-
tically and with international organizations to which the United States
belongs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Under section
2954 of title 5, United States Code, an executive agency, if so requested
by this committee or any seven members thereof, shall submit any informa-
tion requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
committee.
[466]
(o) Committee on Rules.

(1) Rules and joint rules (other than those
§ 733. Rules. relating to the Code of Official
Conduct) and the order of busi-
ness of the House.
(2) Recesses and final adjournments of Con-
gress.
This committee, which had existed as a select committee from 1789,
became a standing committee in 1880 (IV, 4321; VII, 2047). The jurisdiction
defined in this paragraph became effective January 2, 1947, as a part of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). Clerical and
stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, including the deletion of a redundant undesignated para-
graph permitting the committee to sit during sessions of the House (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). That undesignated paragraph, originally des-
ignated as subparagraph (3) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), was derived
from section 134(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, even
though the committee had authority to sit during sessions of the House
since 1893 (IV, 4546). Effective January 3, 1975, however, the authority
for all committees to sit and act whether the House is in session or has
adjourned rendered this provision obsolete (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470).
The Speaker was first made a member of the committee in 1858 (IV,
4321), and ceased to be a member on March 19, 1910 (VII, 2047). However,
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 deleted from the former rule
the prohibition against the Speaker serving on the committee. The size
of the committee was increased from 12 to 15 members for the 87th Con-
gress (Jan. 31, 1961, p. 1589), and the increase in the committee’s size
was incorporated as a part of the rules in the 88th Congress (Jan. 9, 1963,
p. 14). Effective January 3, 1975, however, the rules were amended to
eliminate prescriptions of committee sizes (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470), and in the 94th through the 98th Congresses 16 Mem-
bers were named to the Committee on Nominations from the respective
party caucuses (see, e.g., H. Res. 76, Jan. 20, 1975, p. 803; H. Res. 101,
Jan. 28, 1975, p. 1611), and in the 99th through 101st Congresses, 13
Members were named to the Committee on Nominations from the respec-
tive party caucuses (see, e.g., H. Res. 34, 35, Jan. 30, 1985, pp. 1271, 1273).
The subject of recesses and adjournments was formerly under the juris-
diction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In section 402(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93–344, July 12, 1974), the com-
mittee was given specific authority to report emergency waivers of the
required reporting date for bills and resolutions authorizing new budget
authority. That authority was incorporated into this rule, effective January
[467]
3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), but was repealed
as obsolete in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Jurisdiction
over rules relating to official conduct and financial disclosure was trans-
ferred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics)
on April 3, 1968 (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong.), but in the 95th Congress,
jurisdiction over rules relating to financial disclosure by Members, officers,
and employees of the House was returned to this committee (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70).
The jurisdiction of this committee is primarily over propositions to make
or change the rules (V, 6770, 6776; VII, 2047), to create committees (IV,
4322; VII, 2048), and to direct them to make investigations (IV, 4322–
4324; VII, 2048). Effective January 3, 1975, however, the authority for
all committees to conduct investigations and studies was made a part of
the standing rules (clause 1(b) of rule XI), as was the authority to issue
subpoenas (clause 2(m) of rule XI) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). The committee also reports resolutions relating to the hour of
daily meeting and the days on which the House shall sit (IV, 4325), and
orders relating to the use of the galleries during the electoral count (IV,
4327). The chair of the Committee on the Budget inserted in the Congres-
sional Record a memorandum of understanding between this committee
and the Committee on the Budget to clarify each Committee’s jurisdiction
over the congressional budget process (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 617). The Committee
on the Budget has primary jurisdiction, and this committee has additional
jurisdiction, over a bill amending the Budget Act to establish new legisla-
tive points of order and directing that the President include a specified
matter in the budget (Feb. 13, 2001, p. 1817).
Since 1883 the Committee on Rules has reported special orders providing
times and methods for consideration of individual bills
§ 734. Special orders of
business. or classes of bills, thereby enabling the House by major-
ity vote to forward particular legislation, instead of
being forced to use for this purpose the motion to suspend the rules, which
requires a two-thirds vote (IV, 3152; V, 6870; for forms of, IV, 3238–3263).
Special orders may still be made by suspension of the rules (IV, 3154)
or by unanimous consent (IV, 3165, 3166; VII, 758); but it is not in order
to provide that a subject be made a special order by way of a motion to
postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164). Before the adoption of rules, and
consequently before there is a rule as to the order of business, the Speaker
may recognize a Member to offer for immediate consideration a special
order providing for the consideration in the House of a subsequent resolu-
tion to adopt rules for the new Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 447;
H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2007, p. l). A special order reported by the Committee
on Rules must be agreed to by a majority vote of the House (IV, 3169).
It is not in order to move to postpone a special order providing for the
consideration of a class of bills (V, 4958), but a bill that comes before the
House by the terms of a special order merely assigning the day for its
consideration may be postponed by a majority vote (IV, 3177–3182). A mo-
[468]
tion to rescind a special order is not privileged under the rules regulating
the order of business (IV, 3173, 3174; V, 5323).
A motion to amend the Rules of the House does not present a question
of privilege (VIII, 3377, overruling VIII, 3376; see also § 706, supra), and
it is not in order by raising a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX to move to direct the Committee on Rules to consider a request
to report a special order of business (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p.
21599), or to direct the Committee on Rules to meet, to elect a temporary
chair (in the temporary absence of the chair) and consider special orders
of business (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26250).
For further discussion of the Committee on Rules, see §§ 857–863, infra.
(p) Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology.
(1) All energy research, development, and
§ 735. Science, Space, demonstration, and projects
and Technology.
therefor, and all federally owned
or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
(2) Astronautical research and development,
including resources, personnel, equipment,
and facilities.
(3) Civil aviation research and development.
(4) Environmental research and develop-
ment.
(5) Marine research.
(6) Commercial application of energy tech-
nology.
(7) National Institute of Standards and
Technology, standardization of weights and
measures, and the metric system.
(8) National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration.
(9) National Space Council.
(10) National Science Foundation.
(11) National Weather Service.
(12) Outer space, including exploration and
control thereof.
[469]
(13) Science scholarships.

(14) Scientific research, development, and
demonstration, and projects therefor.
The standing Committee on Science and Astronautics was established
in the 85th Congress and given jurisdiction formerly vested in a Select
Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration established a few
months earlier (Mar. 5, 1958, p. 3443), as well as the former jurisdiction
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (now Energy and
Commerce) over the Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of
Standards and Technology) and science scholarships (July 21, 1958, p.
14513). By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January
3, 1975, the committee was redesignated as the Committee on Science
and Technology and given additional jurisdiction over civil aviation re-
search and development, environmental research and development, non-
nuclear energy research and development, and the National Weather Serv-
ice (now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). At the same time the
committee was given the general and special oversight functions set forth
in clause 2(b) and former clause 3(f) (current clause 3(k)). When the House
abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the 95th Congress,
this committee was given jurisdiction over nuclear research and develop-
ment as well (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70). Its jurisdiction over
energy research and development (now subpara. (1)) was amended in the
96th Congress, effective January 3, 1981, to specifically include energy
demonstration projects and federally owned nonmilitary energy labora-
tories (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405–10). In the 100th Congress,
the committee was redesignated as the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). In the 103d Congress the jurisdic-
tional statement of the committee was updated to reflect the renaming
of executive branch entities (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). The 104th
Congress renamed the committee as the Committee on Science and ex-
panded its jurisdiction by adding subparagraph (5), from the former Com-
mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and subparagraph (6), from
the Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The 110th Congress renamed the committee
as the Committee on Science and Technology (sec. 216(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19) and the 112th Congress redesignated it the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology (sec. 2(e)(9), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
l).
The committee has jurisdiction over proposals dealing with U.S. partici-
pation in the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition (June 24, 1959, p.
11810); over a resolution condemning Soviet Union internal exile of an
[470]
individual, and recommending that Government agencies including NASA,

the National Bureau of Standards and the National Science Foundation
defer official travel to that country (Jan. 30, 1980, p. 1320); with the Com-
mittees on Armed Services and Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural
Resources), over bills to test the commercial viability of oil shale tech-
nologies within the naval oil shale reserves or on other public lands (Sept.
26, 1978, p. 31623); and with four other committees over a bill coordinating
Federal agencies’ research into ground water contamination, including that
done by the Environmental Protection Agency (Mar. 15, 1989, p. 4163).
The Committee on Natural Resources, and not this committee, has jurisdic-
tion over a bill transferring interest in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration fisheries research laboratory (Oct. 1, 2002, p. 18796).
(q) Committee on Small Business.

(1) Assistance to and protection of small
§ 736. Small Business. business, including financial aid,
regulatory flexibility, and paper-
work reduction.
(2) Participation of small-business enter-
prises in Federal procurement and Govern-
ment contracts.
A Select Committee on Small Business was first established in the 77th
Congress (H. Res. 294, pp. 9418–28) and was reconstituted each Congress
thereafter by resolution reported from the Committee on Rules until made
permanent in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144).
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 established a standing
Committee on Small Business, effective January 3, 1975, and vested it
with legislative jurisdiction formerly held by the Committee on Banking
and Currency (now Financial Services) (subpara. (1)) and the Committee
on the Judiciary (subpara. (2)) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). At the same time the general and special oversight functions were
set forth in clause 2(b) and in former clause 3(g) (current clause 3(l)). The
104th Congress expanded the jurisdiction of the committee over assistance
to and protection of small business by inserting the references to regulatory
flexibility and paperwork reduction in subparagraph (1) (sec. 202(a), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; see also Feb. 9, 1995, p. 4328) and later effected
a technical correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Clerical and
106th Congress, including the deletion of a redundant undesignated recita-
tion of general and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
[471]
(r) Committee on Transportation and In-

frastructure.
(1) Coast Guard, including lifesaving serv-
§ 739. Transportation ice, lighthouses, lightships, ocean
and Infrastructure.
derelicts, and the Coast Guard
Academy.
(2) Federal management of emergencies and
natural disasters.
(3) Flood control and improvement of rivers
and harbors.
(4) Inland waterways.
(5) Inspection of merchant marine vessels,
lights and signals, lifesaving equipment, and
fire protection on such vessels.
(6) Navigation and laws relating thereto, in-
cluding pilotage.
(7) Registering and licensing of vessels and
small boats.
(8) Rules and international arrangements to
prevent collisions at sea.
(9) The Capitol Building and the Senate and
House Office Buildings.
(10) Construction or maintenance of roads
and post roads (other than appropriations
therefor).
(11) Construction or reconstruction, mainte-
nance, and care of buildings and grounds of
the Botanic Garden, the Library of Congress,
and the Smithsonian Institution.
(12) Merchant marine (except for national
security aspects thereof).
(13) Purchase of sites and construction of
post offices, customhouses, Federal court-
[472]
houses, and Government buildings within the

District of Columbia.
(14) Oil and other pollution of navigable
waters, including inland, coastal, and ocean
waters.
(15) Marine affairs, including coastal zone
management, as they relate to oil and other
pollution of navigable waters.
(16) Public buildings and occupied or im-
proved grounds of the United States generally.
(17) Public works for the benefit of naviga-
tion, including bridges and dams (other than
international bridges and dams).
(18) Related transportation regulatory agen-
cies (except the Transportation Security Ad-
ministration).
(19) Roads and the safety thereof.
(20) Transportation, including civil aviation,
railroads, water transportation, transportation
safety (except automobile safety and transpor-
tation security functions of the Department of
Homeland Security), transportation infrastruc-
ture, transportation labor, and railroad retire-
ment and unemployment (except revenue
measures related thereto).
(21) Water power.
The committee was created effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the Com-
mittees on Flood Control (created in 1916) (VII, 2069), Public Buildings
and Grounds (created in 1837) (IV, 4231), Rivers and Harbors (created
in 1883) (IV, 4118)), and Roads (created in 1913) (VII, 2065). The authority
of the committee to report as privileged bills authorizing the improvement
of rivers and harbors was eliminated by the Committee Reform Amend-
ments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470). At the same time the committee’s jurisdiction over parks
[473]
in the District of Columbia was transferred to the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources); and it gained jurisdiction
over transportation, including civil aviation (except railroads, railroad
labor, and railroad pensions), over roads and the safety thereof, over water
transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, and over related transportation regulatory agencies with certain
exceptions. The 104th Congress changed the name of the Committee from
Public Works and Transportation to Transportation and Infrastructure and
expanded its jurisdiction by: adding subparagraphs (1), (6)–(8), (12), and
(15) to reflect the transfer of those matters from the former Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; adding subparagraph (4) and enlarging
subparagraph (20) to reflect the transfer of those matters from the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce; and adding subparagraph (2) and insert-
ing the reference to inland, coastal, and ocean waters in subparagraph
(14), as clarifying consolidations of formerly fractionalized subjects (sec.
202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress. The
106th Congress also adopted a substantive amendment to this provision
deleting the prohibition against including a provision for a specific road
in a bill providing for another specific road or in a general road bill (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th Congress the House established
the Committee on Homeland Security (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 42). The new committee was given jurisdiction over certain functions
of the Department of Homeland Security that resulted in two conforming
changes to this paragraph. For debate (and material submitted during de-
bate) that may edify the reader on the jurisdictional issues surrounding
the creation of that committee, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60 0962.
The committee has jurisdiction over proposals establishing Treasury re-
volving funds for the Southeastern and Southwestern Power Administra-
tions (July 2, 1959, p. 12629); directing the Secretary of the Army to provide
school facilities for dependents of Corps of Engineers construction workers
(June 17, 1968, p. 17429); conveying Corps of Engineers flood-control
project lands (July 15, 1965, p. 17002), naming reservoirs within such
projects (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22770) or allocating or limiting water use there-
from (Feb. 28, 1990, p. 2893); directing the Secretary of the Army to renew
the license of an American Legion Post to use a parcel of land on a Corps
of Engineer project (May 10, 1988, p. 10282); authorizing construction of
an annex to the National Gallery of Art by the Smithsonian Institution
(Apr. 10, 1968, p. 9553); addressing the location and development of the
J. F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (Sept. 15, 1965, p. 23927;
Oct. 21, 1965, p. 27803); transferring land under the control of the Corps
of Engineers to Indian tribes (Jan. 29, 1976, p. 1577); amending the Inter-
state Commerce Act to regulate truck transportation (Feb. 24, 1976, p.
4109; Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3754); concerning the treatment of a U.S. air freight
carrier by the Japanese Ministry of Transport pursuant to an under-
standing negotiated under the International Air Transportation Competi-
[474]
tion Act of 1979 (not a Trade Act matter) (July 28, 1988, p. 19536); and
over an executive communication amending Public Law 90–553, reported
by the committee, to authorize the transfer, conveyance, lease and improve-
ment of, and construction on, certain property in the District of Columbia,
for use as a headquarters site for an international organization, as sites
for governments of foreign countries (Sept. 10, 1981, p. 20598). The Com-
mittee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and Govern-
ment Reform), and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill renaming
an existing post office building (Aug. 4, 1995, p. 22085; Oct. 1, 1998, p.
22933) and renaming an existing post office building that also housed a
courthouse (Sept. 14, 2000, p. 18054). However, this committee, and not
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has jurisdiction over
a bill redesignating a general-purpose Federal building as a post office
(Apr. 24, 1997, p. 6291). This committee, and not the Committee on Ways
and Means, has jurisdiction over a bill designating a customs building
(Dec. 12, 1995, p. 36165). The Committee on Natural Resources, and not
this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill to validate certain conveyances
of erstwhile public lands by a railway company (July 11, 1995, p. 18397).
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and not this com-
mittee, has jurisdiction over a bill transferring real property administered
by the Coast Guard where the bill explicitly waives the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act and directs the Administrator of General
Services to convey the property (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23186).
The committee has shared jurisdiction: with the Committee on Energy
and Commerce over a bill amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites or discharges presenting a threat
to human health and the environment, including navigable waters (Mar.
21, 1984, p. 6186); with the Committee on Government Operations (now
Oversight and Government Reform) over a bill to require the Administrator
of General Services to convey certain real property (a Federal building)
to the Museum for the American Indian and providing for renovation and
alteration of the property (Oct. 28, 1987, p. 29685); with the Committee
on House Administration over a bill authorizing the Smithsonian Institu-
tion to construct, expand, and renovate facilities at the Cooper-Hewitt Mu-
seum in New York (July 21, 1987, p. 20309), and over a bill authorizing
appropriations to plan, design, construct, and equip museum space for the
Smithsonian (July 18, 1991, p. 18830); with several other committees over
bills to convert from a defense economy by, inter alia, authorizing economic
assistance for public works and economic development (June 24, 1991, p.
16021; June 11, 1992, p. 14470); and with the Committee on Education
and Labor (now Education and the Workforce) over bills providing labor
protections to workers, including airline employees, in the transportation
industry (June 24, 1991, p. 16020; Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3577).
In the 101st Congress, the committee reported a bill requiring a cooling-
off period in a labor-management dispute between an airline and its unions
under the Railway Labor Act (H.R. 1231, Mar. 13, 1989, p. 4032).
[475]
(s) Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

(1) Veterans’ measures generally.
(2) Cemeteries of the United States in which
§ 740. Veterans’ veterans of any war or conflict
Affairs.
are or may be buried, whether in
the United States or abroad (except cemeteries
administered by the Secretary of the Interior).
(3) Compensation, vocational rehabilitation,
and education of veterans.
(4) Life insurance issued by the Government
on account of service in the Armed Forces.
(5) Pensions of all the wars of the United
States, general and special.
(6) Readjustment of servicemembers to civil
life.
(7) Servicemembers’ civil relief.
(8) Veterans’ hospitals, medical care, and
treatment of veterans.
This committee was established January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), and was vested with jurisdic-
tion formerly exercised by the Committees on World War Veterans’ Legisla-
tion (VII, 2077); Invalid Pensions (IV, 4258); and Pensions (IV, 4260). Juris-
diction over veterans’ cemeteries administered by the Department of De-
fense was transferred from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
(now Natural Resources) in the 90th Congress (H. Res. 241, Oct. 20, 1967,
p. 29560), a matter now shared with the Committee on Armed Services.
Vocational rehabilitation, except that pertaining to veterans, is under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The com-
mittee has jurisdiction over bills to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to permit certain declarations of fact in lieu of affidavits (Feb. 4, 1959,
p. 1812), and over bills to amend the Servicemen’s and Veterans’ Survivor
Benefits Act relating to service-connected deaths of retired members of
the uniformed services (May 18, 1959, p. 8273). Clerical and stylistic
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Technical changes to subpara-
graphs (6) and (7) were effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).
[476]
(t) Committee on Ways and Means.

(1) Customs revenue, collection districts,
§ 741. Ways and and ports of entry and delivery.
Means.
(2) Reciprocal trade agreements.

(3) Revenue measures generally.
(4) Revenue measures relating to insular
possessions.
(5) Bonded debt of the United States, sub-
ject to the last sentence of clause 4(f).
(6) Deposit of public monies.
(7) Transportation of dutiable goods.
(8) Tax exempt foundations and charitable
trusts.
(9) National social security (except health
care and facilities programs that are sup-
ported from general revenues as opposed to
payroll deductions and except work incentive
programs).
A select Committee on Ways and Means dates from 1789. It was made
a standing committee in 1802. Originally it considered both revenue and
appropriations, but in 1865 the appropriation bills were given to the Com-
mittee on Appropriations and certain other bills to the Committee on Bank-
ing and Currency (now Financial Services) (IV, 4020). Its jurisdiction was
also amended on April 5, 1911 (p. 58), and further defined in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which transferred the subject
of recesses and final adjournments from this committee to the Committee
on Rules.
1975, the committee gained legislative jurisdiction over tax exempt founda-
tions and charitable trusts (subpara. (8)), formerly within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking and Currency (now Financial Services) be-
cause of their impact on the economy, while it was released from: jurisdic-
tion over health care and facilities programs supported from general reve-
nues to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; jurisdiction over work
incentive programs to the Committee on Education and Labor (now Edu-
cation and the Workforce); and jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Com-
mittee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (now Financial Services)
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The Committee Reform
[477]
Amendments also transferred jurisdiction over general revenue sharing

from this committee to the Committee on Government Operations (now
Oversight and Government Reform); however, revenue sharing was strick-
en from the jurisdictional statement of that committee in the 104th Con-
gress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464).
The committee’s jurisdiction over the bonded debt of the United States
(subpara. (5)) was made subject to the last sentence of clause 4(f) (formerly
clause 4(g)) of rule X in the 96th Congress by Public Law 96–78 (93 Stat.
589). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the
109th Congress the House established the Committee on Homeland Secu-
rity (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42), which was given jurisdiction
over certain functions of the Department of Homeland Security that re-
sulted in a conforming change to this paragraph. For debate (and material
submitted during debate) that may edify the reader on the jurisdictional
issues surrounding the creation of that committee, see January 4, 2005,
pp. 60 0962.
The revenue jurisdiction of the committee extends to such subjects as
transportation of dutiable goods, collection districts, ports of entry and
delivery (IV, 4026), customs unions, reciprocity treaties (IV, 4021), revenue
relations of the United States with Puerto Rico (IV, 4025), the revenue
bills relating to agricultural products generally, excepting oleomargarine
(IV, 4022), and tax on cotton and grain futures. The committee formerly
had jurisdiction as to seal herds and other revenue-producing animals in
Alaska but this jurisdiction was changed in the 68th Congress to the former
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (VII, 1725, 1851). As exem-
plified by sequential referrals in the 96th Congress, the committee has
jurisdiction over reported bills creating major oil spill and hazardous waste
trust funds in the Treasury, funded by assessments on all quantities of
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, and other hazardous substances offered for
sale, where the scope and size of the funds and the method of assessment
(similar to an excise tax) represented the collection of general revenue
to fund particular Federal activities, a type of financing mechanism over
which the Ways and Means Committee has traditionally exercised jurisdic-
tion (May 20, 1980, p. 11862).
The committee has jurisdiction over subjects relating to the Treasury
of the United States and the deposit of the public moneys (IV, 4028), but
it failed to make good a claim to the subjects of ‘‘national finances’’ and
‘‘preservation of the Government credit’’ (IV, 4023). The committee has
jurisdiction over bills providing tax incentives for persons investing in In-
dian property (Feb. 1, 1964, p. 1582), providing unemployment compensa-
tion to individuals with military or Federal service (Apr. 28, 1976, p.
11590), providing extended and increased unemployment compensation
(Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10346), and over private bills waiving provisions of the
Tariff Act to require reliquidation of certain imported materials as duty-
free (July 13, 1982, p. 16014). The Committee on Transportation and Infra-
[478]
structure, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill to designate
a customs administrative building (Dec. 12, 1995, p. 36165). The Com-
mittee on the Budget, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill
establishing a rule of sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act (Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27085). The Committee on
the Budget has primary jurisdiction, and this committee has additional
jurisdiction, over a bill taking Social Security trust funds off budget (Dec.
15, 2000, p. 27085).
The committee has exercised jurisdiction, with the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, over executive communications reporting on inpatient hos-
pital services under title XVIII (medicare) and under title XIX (medicaid)
of the Social Security Act (Dec. 21, 1982, p. 33261); with the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture) over executive communications proposing draft legislation reauthor-
izing the Surface Transportation Act but also containing a revenue title
raising taxes to fund surface transportation programs (Mar. 20, 1986, p.
5804); with the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (suc-
ceeded by the Committee on Natural Resources) over a bill amending the
Fishermen’s Protective Act to authorize the President to prohibit the im-
portation of any product from a country violating an international fishery
conservation program (Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5077); and with three other com-
mittees over a bill imposing certain international economic sanctions in-
cluding tariffs (May 27, 1992, p. 12658).
The committee in the earlier practice reported resolutions distributing
the President’s annual message (IV, 4030), but since the first session of
the 64th Congress this practice has been discontinued (VIII, 3350).
General oversight responsibilities

2. (a) The various standing committees shall
§ 742. General have general oversight responsibil-
oversight.
ities as provided in paragraph (b) in
order to assist the House in—
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation
of—
(A) the application, administration, execu-
tion, and effectiveness of Federal laws; and
(B) conditions and circumstances that may
indicate the necessity or desirability of en-
acting new or additional legislation; and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enact-
ment of changes in Federal laws, and of such
[479]
additional legislation as may be necessary or

appropriate.
(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and
programs addressing subjects within the juris-
diction of a committee are being implemented
and carried out in accordance with the intent of
Congress and whether they should be continued,
curtailed, or eliminated, each standing com-
mittee (other than the Committee on Appropria-
tions) shall review and study on a continuing
basis—
(A) the application, administration, execu-
tion, and effectiveness of laws and programs
addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
(B) the organization and operation of Fed-
eral agencies and entities having responsibil-
ities for the administration and execution of
laws and programs addressing subjects within
its jurisdiction;
(C) any conditions or circumstances that
may indicate the necessity or desirability of
enacting new or additional legislation address-
ing subjects within its jurisdiction (whether or
not a bill or resolution has been introduced
with respect thereto); and
(D) future research and forecasting on sub-
jects within its jurisdiction.
(2) Each committee to which subparagraph (1)
§ 743. Oversight applies having more than 20 mem-
subcommittees.
bers shall establish an oversight
subcommittee, or require its subcommittees to
conduct oversight in their respective jurisdic-
tions, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities
[480]
under this clause. The establishment of an over-

sight subcommittee does not limit the responsi-
bility of a subcommittee with legislative jurisdic-
tion in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
(c) Each standing committee shall review and
study on a continuing basis the impact or prob-
able impact of tax policies affecting subjects
within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1
and 3.
(d)(1) Not later than February 15 of the first
session of a Congress, each standing committee
shall, in a meeting that is open to the public and
with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plan
for that Congress. Such plan shall be submitted
simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform and to the Committee
on House Administration. In developing its plan
each committee shall, to the maximum extent
feasible—
(A) consult with other committees that have
jurisdiction over the same or related laws, pro-
grams, or agencies within its jurisdiction with
the objective of ensuring maximum coordina-
tion and cooperation among committees when
conducting reviews of such laws, programs, or
agencies and include in its plan an expla-
nation of steps that have been or will be taken
to ensure such coordination and cooperation;
(B) review specific problems with Federal
rules, regulations, statutes, and court deci-
sions that are ambiguous, arbitrary, or non-
sensical, or that impose severe financial bur-
dens on individuals;
[481]
(C) give priority consideration to including

in its plan the review of those laws, programs,
or agencies operating under permanent budget
authority or permanent statutory authority;
(D) have a view toward ensuring that all
significant laws, programs, or agencies within
its jurisdiction are subject to review every 10
years;
(E) have a view toward insuring against du-
plication of Federal programs; and
(F) include proposals to cut or eliminate pro-
grams, including mandatory spending pro-
grams, that are inefficient, duplicative, out-
dated, or more appropriately administered by
State or local governments.
(2) Not later than March 31 in the first ses-
sion of a Congress, after consultation with the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority
Leader, the Committee on Oversight and Gov-
ernment Reform shall report to the House the
oversight plans submitted by committees to-
gether with any recommendations that it, or the
House leadership group described above, may
make to ensure the most effective coordination
of oversight plans and otherwise to achieve the
objectives of this clause.
(e) The Speaker, with the approval of the
House, may appoint special ad hoc oversight
committees for the purpose of reviewing specific
matters within the jurisdiction of two or more
standing committees.
Clause 2(a), and the first requirement of clause 2(b)(1) that each standing
committee shall review the application, etc. of all laws within its jurisdic-
[482]
tion, was originally contained in section 118(b) of the Legislative Reorga-

nization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was made part of the standing
rules on January 22, 1971 (H. Res. 5, p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975,
general oversight responsibilities set forth in the remainder of the clause
were incorporated into the rule (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). Oversight responsibilities are also contained in section 190d of
title 2, United States Code. On January 14, 1975, the size of those standing
committees required by clause 2(b)(2) (formerly clause 2(b)(1)) to establish
an oversight subcommittee or to require its subcommittees to conduct over-
sight was increased from 15 to more than 20 (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p.
20). In the 100th Congress a requirement that representatives from the
Committee on Government Operations (now Oversight and Government
Reform) meet with other committees at the beginning of each Congress
to discuss oversight plans and that that Committee report to the House
its oversight coordination recommendations within 60 days after the con-
vening of the first session was deleted (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). The
104th Congress added the requirement that each standing committee adopt
by February 15 of the first session of a Congress its oversight plans for
that Congress, such plans to be submitted to the Committees on Govern-
ment Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and Government Reform) and
House Oversight (now House Administration). The 104th Congress also
added paragraph (e) (sec. 203(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). The
106th Congress deleted a provision added in the 104th Congress making
consideration of resolutions funding each committee contingent on submis-
sion of its oversight plans to the committees specified; deleted the exception
for the Budget Committee from the general oversight responsibilities listed
in clause 2(b); effected clerical corrections to conform references to a re-
named committee; and effected clerical and stylistic changes when the
House recodified its rules (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clause 2(d)(1)(B)
was added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p.
25). Clause 2(d)(1)(E) was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. 42, 43) and clause 2(d)(1)(F) was added in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(c)(11), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Paragraph (d) was
amended in the 110th Congress to reflect a change in committee name
(sec. 215(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19).
Special oversight functions

3. (a) The Committee on Appropriations shall
§ 744. Special conduct such studies and examina-
oversight.
tions of the organization and oper-
ation of executive departments and other execu-
tive agencies (including an agency the majority
of the stock of which is owned by the United
[483]
States) as it considers necessary to assist it in

the determination of matters within its jurisdic-
tion.
(b) The Committee on Armed Services shall
review and study on a continuing basis laws,
programs, and Government activities relating to
international arms control and disarmament and
the education of military dependents in schools.
(c) The Committee on the Budget shall study
on a continuing basis the effect on budget out-
lays of relevant existing and proposed legislation
and report the results of such studies to the
House on a recurring basis.
(d) The Committee on Education and the
Workforce shall review, study, and coordinate on
a continuing basis laws, programs, and Govern-
ment activities relating to domestic educational
programs and institutions and programs of stu-
dent assistance within the jurisdiction of other
committees.
(e) The Committee on Energy and Commerce
shall review and study on a continuing basis
laws, programs, and Government activities relat-
ing to nuclear and other energy and nonmilitary
nuclear energy research and development in-
cluding the disposal of nuclear waste.
(f) The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall re-
view and study on a continuing basis laws, pro-
grams, and Government activities relating to
customs administration, intelligence activities
relating to foreign policy, international financial
and monetary organizations, and international
fishing agreements.
[484]
(g)(1) The Committee on Homeland Security

shall review and study on a continuing basis all
Government activities relating to homeland se-
curity, including the interaction of all depart-
ments and agencies with the Department of
Homeland Security.
(2) In addition, the committee shall review
and study on a primary and continuing basis all
Government activities, programs, and organiza-
tions related to homeland security that fall with-
in its primary legislative jurisdiction.
(h) The Committee on Natural Resources shall
review and study on a continuing basis laws,
programs, and Government activities relating to
Native Americans.
(i) The Committee on Oversight and Govern-
ment Reform shall review and study on a con-
tinuing basis the operation of Government ac-
tivities at all levels with a view to determining
their economy and efficiency.
(j) The Committee on Rules shall review and
study on a continuing basis the congressional
budget process, and the committee shall report
its findings and recommendations to the House
from time to time.
(k) The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology shall review and study on a con-
tinuing basis laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to nonmilitary research and
development.
(l) The Committee on Small Business shall
study and investigate on a continuing basis the
problems of all types of small business.
[485]
(m) The Permanent Select Committee on In-

telligence shall review and study on a continuing
basis laws, programs, and activities of the intel-
ligence community and shall review and study
on an exclusive basis the sources and methods of
entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A).
The oversight authority conferred on the Committee on Appropriations
was first given that committee on February 11, 1943 (p. 884), continued
by resolution of January 9, 1945 (p. 135), and incorporated into permanent
law in section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and
made a part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (pp. 17, 24). The
special oversight responsibilities of the Committee on the Budget were
made part of the rules effective July 12, 1974 by section 101(c) of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 300). Paragraph (e) (formerly para-
graph (h)) was added on January 4, 1977, upon the abolition of the legisla-
tive jurisdiction in the House of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
(H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53–70). The special oversight responsibilities
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce over nuclear energy to all
energy programs became effective January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25,
1980, pp. 6405–10). The oversight authority conferred on the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform was first made effective as part
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). In the 104th
Congress conforming amendments to the special oversight functions of the
Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce were adopt-
ed to reflect the transfer of jurisdiction over nonmilitary nuclear energy
from the Committee on Natural Resources to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Paragraph (j) was
added by section 226 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con-
trol Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177). The remainder of the clause (except for
paragraphs (g) and (m)) became effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). This clause has been amended several
times to conform references to renamed committees (H. Res. 89, Feb. 5,
1979, p. 1848; H. Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405–10; H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49; sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 1997, p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007,
p. 19; H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, includ-
ing the transfer to this clause of oversight functions of the Committees
on Oversight and Government Reform and Appropriations found in clause
2 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The oversight authority of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in paragraph (m) was added in the 107th
Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The Committee on Home-
land Security was established in the 109th Congress and given the over-
sight authority set forth in paragraph (g)(1) (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
[486]
Rule X, clause 4 § 745–§ 746
2005, p. 42). Paragraph (g)(2) was added in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(b),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
Section 9 of the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H.
Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040) added a paragraph in this clause creating
a bipartisan Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight of the Committee
on House Administration, to be chaired by the chair of the Committee
on House Administration and to be composed of members of the Committee
on House Administration, one-half from the majority party and one-half
from the minority party. The paragraph was rewritten in the 103d Con-
gress to provide that the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, and
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Admin-
istration be informed of tie votes in that subcommittee (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49), but the paragraph was deleted entirely in the 104th Con-
gress (sec. 201(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
Additional functions of committees

4. (a)(1)(A) The Committee on Appropriations
§ 745. Committee on shall, within 30 days after the
Appropriations;
budget hearings. transmittal of the Budget to Con-
gress each year, hold hearings on
the Budget as a whole with particular reference
to—
(i) the basic recommendations and budg-
etary policies of the President in the presen-
tation of the Budget; and
(ii) the fiscal, financial, and economic as-
sumptions used as bases in arriving at total
estimated expenditures and receipts.
(B) In holding hearings under subdivision (A),
the committee shall receive testimony from the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Chair-
man of the Council of Economic Advisers, and
such other persons as the committee may desire.
(C) A hearing under subdivision (A), or any
§ 746. Procedure for part thereof, shall be held in open
budget hearings.
session, except when the committee,
[487]
in open session and with a quorum present, de-

termines by record vote that the testimony to be
taken at that hearing on that day may be re-
lated to a matter of national security. The com-
mittee may by the same procedure close one sub-
sequent day of hearing. A transcript of all such
hearings shall be printed and a copy thereof fur-
nished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resi-
dent Commissioner.
(D) A hearing under subdivision (A), or any
part thereof, may be held before a joint meeting
of the committee and the Committee on Appro-
priations of the Senate in accordance with such
procedures as the two committees jointly may
determine.
This part of clause 4 was originally contained in section 242(c)(1) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and was made part of the standing
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Paragraph
(a)(1)(C), requiring open hearings, was first adopted in the 93d Congress
(H. Res. 259, Mar. 7, 1973, pp. 6713–20) and was amended in the 94th
Congress to limit the effect of a vote to close a hearing to that day and
one subsequent day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). Clerical and stylistic
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(2) Pursuant to section 401(b)(2) of the Con-

gressional Budget Act of 1974,
§ 747. Budget Act; 15-
day referral to
when a committee reports a bill or
Appropriations.
joint resolution that provides new

entitlement authority as defined in section 3(9)
of that Act, and enactment of the bill or joint
resolution, as reported, would cause a breach of
the committee’s pertinent allocation of new
budget authority under section 302(a) of that
Act, the bill or joint resolution may be referred
to the Committee on Appropriations with in-
[488]
structions to report it with recommendations

(which may include an amendment limiting the
total amount of new entitlement authority pro-
vided in the bill or joint resolution). If the Com-
mittee on Appropriations fails to report a bill or
joint resolution so referred within 15 calendar
days (not counting any day on which the House
is not in session), the committee automatically
shall be discharged from consideration of the bill
or joint resolution, and the bill or joint resolu-
tion shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(3) In addition, the Committee on Appropria-
tions shall study on a continuing basis those
provisions of law that (on the first day of the
first fiscal year for which the congressional
budget process is effective) provide spending au-
thority or permanent budget authority and shall
report to the House from time to time its rec-
ommendations for terminating or modifying such
provisions.
(4) In the manner provided by section 302 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Com-
mittee on Appropriations (after consulting with
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate)
shall subdivide any allocations made to it in the
joint explanatory statement accompanying the
conference report on such concurrent resolution,
and promptly report the subdivisions to the
House as soon as practicable after a concurrent
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year is
agreed to.
Subparagraph (2) first became effective on July 12, 1974, by inclusion
in section 401(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 317),
[489]
§ 747a–§ 748 Rule X, clause 4
was incorporated into the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), was amended in the 95th Congress
to correct an error in cross-reference (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70),
and was again amended in the 105th Congress to reflect the repeal of
the collective definition of ‘‘new spending authority’’ and the revision of
various remaining parts (Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L.
105–33). Subparagraph (3) was also contained in the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 in section 402(f), and was likewise incorporated into the rules
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
The requirements of subparagraph (4) (formerly paragraph (h)) was origi-
nally contained in section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(P.L. 93–344, July 12, 1974) and was incorporated into this rule effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). It was
amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508)
to conform to the enactment of title VI of the Budget Act. It was again
amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10118, P.L. 105–
33) to conform to the subsequent repeal of title VI. Clerical and stylistic
Congress, including the transfer of former paragraph (h) to this paragraph
as new subparagraph (4) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A former subparagraph (5) added in the 110th Congress established a
Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee
§ 747a. Former Select
on Appropriations to review budget requests for and
Intelligence Oversight
Panel. execution of intelligence activities (H. Res. 35, Jan. 9,
2007, p. 567). It was abolished in the 112th Congress
(sec. 2(e)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
(b) The Committee on the Budget shall—

(1) review on a continuing basis the conduct
§ 748. Budget. by the Congressional Budget Of-
fice of its functions and duties;
(2) hold hearings and receive testimony from
Members, Senators, Delegates, the Resident
Commissioner, and such appropriate rep-
resentatives of Federal departments and agen-
cies, the general public, and national organiza-
tions as it considers desirable in developing
concurrent resolutions on the budget for each
fiscal year;
(3) make all reports required of it by the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974;
[490]
(4) study on a continuing basis those provi-

sions of law that exempt Federal agencies or
any of their activities or outlays from inclusion
in the Budget of the United States Govern-
ment, and report to the House from time to
time its recommendations for terminating or
modifying such provisions;
(5) study on a continuing basis proposals de-
signed to improve and facilitate the congres-
sional budget process, and report to the House
from time to time the results of such studies,
together with its recommendations; and
(6) request and evaluate continuing studies
of tax expenditures, devise methods of coordi-
nating tax expenditures, policies, and pro-
grams with direct budget outlays, and report
the results of such studies to the House on a
recurring basis.
Paragraph (b)(1) became a part of the rules on July 12, 1974 by enact-
ment of section 101(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
300). Subparagraph (2), contained in section 301(d) of that Act, subpara-
graph (3), subparagraph (4), contained in section 606 of that Act, and sub-
paragraph (5), contained in section 703 of that Act, all were made part
of the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (b)(2) was amended in the 99th Congress by
section 232 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (P.L. 99–177) to remove reference to the first concurrent resolution
on the budget. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
subparagraph (6) was found in former clause 1(d)(5)(C) of rule X (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c)(1) The Committee on Oversight and Gov-

§ 749. Oversight and ernment Reform shall—
Government Reform.
(A) receive and examine reports of the

Comptroller General of the United States and
submit to the House such recommendations as
[491]
it considers necessary or desirable in connec-

tion with the subject matter of the reports;
(B) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to
reorganize the legislative and executive
branches of the Government; and
(C) study intergovernmental relationships
between the United States and the States and
municipalities and between the United States
and international organizations of which the
United States is a member.
(2) In addition to its duties under subpara-
graph (1), the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform may at any time conduct
investigations of any matter without regard to
clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause conferring juris-
diction over the matter to another standing
committee. The findings and recommendations
of the committee in such an investigation shall
be made available to any other standing com-
mittee having jurisdiction over the matter in-
volved.
Paragraph (c)(1) became effective January 2, 1947, as part of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). Paragraph (c)(2) was made
a function of the Committee effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (c)(2) was amended in the 107th
Congress to delete the requirement that committees include oversight find-
ings and recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform in
their reports as was required under the former clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Clerical and stylistic changes
were effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under section 2954 of title 5, United States
Code, an executive agency, if so requested by this committee or any seven
members thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating
to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.
[492]
Rule X, clause 4 § 749a–§ 750
(3)(A) The Committee on Oversight and Gov-

§ 749a. Deposition ernment Reform may adopt a rule
authority.
authorizing and regulating the tak-
ing of depositions by a member or counsel of the
committee, including pursuant to subpoena
under clause 2(m) of rule XI (which hereby is
made applicable for such purpose).
(B) A rule adopted by the committee pursuant
to this subparagraph—
(i) may provide that a deponent be directed
to subscribe an oath or affirmation before a
person authorized by law to administer the
same;
(ii) shall ensure that the minority members
and staff of the committee are accorded equi-
table treatment with respect to notice of and
a reasonable opportunity to participate in any
proceeding conducted thereunder; and
(iii) shall, unless waived by the deponent,
require the attendance of a member of the
committee.
(C) Information secured pursuant to the au-
thority described in subdivision (A) shall retain
the character of discovery until offered for ad-
mission in evidence before the committee, at
which time any proper objection shall be timely.
This subparagraph was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 502, H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Subdivision (A)(iii) was added
in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(14), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Other
committees have been granted such authority for specific investigations
(Dec. 5, 2007, p. l; sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; May 20, 2010,
p. l).
(d)(1) The Committee on House Administra-

§ 750. House tion shall—
Administration.
[493]
§ 752–§ 754 Rule X, clause 4
(A) provide policy direction for the Inspector

§ 752. Direction of General and oversight of the Clerk,
officers.
Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Adminis-
trative Officer, and Inspector General;
(B) oversee the management of services pro-
vided to the House by the Architect of the Cap-
itol, except those services that lie within the ju-
risdiction of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure under clause 1(r);
(C) have the function of accepting on behalf of
§ 753. Acceptance of the House a gift, except as other-
gifts.
wise provided by law, if the gift
does not involve a duty, burden, or condition, or
is not made dependent on some future perform-
ance by the House;
(D) promulgate regulations to carry out sub-
division (C); and
(E) establish and maintain standards for mak-
ing documents publicly available in electronic
form by the House and its committees.
(2) An employing office of the House may
§ 754. Approval of enter into a settlement of a com-
certain settlements.
plaint under the Congressional Ac-
countability Act of 1995 that provides for the
payment of funds only after receiving the joint
approval of the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administra-
tion concerning the amount of such payment.
The duty of the committee to arrange for memorial services of Members
was eliminated from the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Former paragraph (d)(3) required the com-
mittee to provide a committee scheduling service, which was provided
through House Information Resources and was made mandatory on all
committees and subcommittees in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1981, pp. 98–113). The requirement was stricken altogether when two pro-
[494]
visions were added by section 10 of the House Administrative Reform Reso-

lution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 102d Cong., Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040) to ensure
the orderly transfer of functions and entities from elected officers to the
Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services and to provide for policy
direction and oversight of certain administrative officials and elected offi-
cers. However, in the 107th Congress the House amended clause 4(d)(1)
of rule X to remove the requirement that the committee provide policy
direction to such officials and officers except the Inspector General (sec.
2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). The Committee also provides policy
review and oversight of the Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services
within the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (sec. 6701, P.L. 110–28).
In the 104th Congress the rule was amended (1) to reflect the change
in the name of the Committee on House Administration to the Committee
on House Oversight and (2) to reflect the abolishment of the Director of
Non-legislative and Financial Services (sec. 201, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 463). Later in the 104th Congress the provision for the acceptance of
gifts was added as paragraph (d)(3) (H. Res. 250, Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33434).
In the 105th Congress paragraph (d) was redesignated as (d)(1), its former
subparagraphs (1) through (3) were redesignated as (1)(A) through (1)(C),
and a new paragraph (d)(2) was added to require approval by the committee
for monetary settlements of certain employment claims (H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 1997, p. 121). In the 111th Congress a new subparagraph (1)(B) was
inserted regarding the Architect of the Capitol (and existing subparagraphs
(1)(B) and (1)(C) were redesignated) (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l). In the 112th Congress subparagraph (E) was added (sec. 2(c), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The 104th Congress also prohibited the estab-
lishment or continuation of any legislative service organization (as that
term had been understood in the 103d Congress) and directed the Com-
mittee on House Oversight (now House Administration) to take such steps
as were necessary to ensure an orderly termination and accounting for
funds of any legislative service organization in existence on January 3,
1995 (sec. 222, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469). Clerical and stylistic changes
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The 107th Congress transferred the commit-
tee’s responsibilities with respect to enrolled bills (formerly paragraph
(d)(1)(A)) to the Clerk (clause 2(d)(2) of rule II) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 25).
(e)(1) Each standing committee shall, in its

§ 755. Annual consideration of all public bills and
appropriations.
public joint resolutions within its
jurisdiction, ensure that appropriations for con-
tinuing programs and activities of the Federal
Government and the government of the District
[495]
of Columbia will be made annually to the max-

imum extent feasible and consistent with the na-
ture, requirement, and objective of the programs
and activities involved. In this subparagraph
programs and activities of the Federal Govern-
ment and the government of the District of Co-
lumbia includes programs and activities of any
department, agency, establishment, wholly
owned Government corporation, or instrumen-
tality of the Federal Government or of the gov-
ernment of the District of Columbia.
(2) Each standing committee shall review from
time to time each continuing program within its
jurisdiction for which appropriations are not
made annually to ascertain whether the pro-
gram should be modified to provide for annual
appropriations.
The provisions of this paragraph derive from section 253(c) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), and were made part of
the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Clerical
Budget Act responsibilities

(f)(1) Each standing committee shall submit to
§ 756. Concurrent the Committee on the Budget not
resolution on Budget.
later than six weeks after the sub-
mission of the budget by the President, or at
such time as the Committee on the Budget may
request—
(A) its views and estimates with respect to
all matters to be set forth in the concurrent
resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal
[496]
year that are within its jurisdiction or func-

tions; and
(B) an estimate of the total amounts of new
budget authority, and budget outlays resulting
therefrom, to be provided or authorized in all
bills and resolutions within its jurisdiction
that it intends to be effective during that fis-
cal year.
(2) The views and estimates submitted by the
Committee on Ways and Means under subpara-
graph (1) shall include a specific recommenda-
tion, made after holding public hearings, as to
the appropriate level of the public debt that
should be set forth in the concurrent resolution
on the budget.
The requirements of paragraph (f)(1) were originally contained in section
301(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93–344, July 12, 1974),
and were incorporated into this rule effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The requirement of paragraph
(f)(2) that the Committee on Ways and Means include a specific rec-
ommendation as to the appropriate level of the public debt in its views
and estimates submitted to the Committee on the Budget was added in
the 96th Congress by Public Law 96–78 (93 Stat. 589) and was originally
intended to apply to concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years
beginning on or after October 1, 1980. However, in the 96th Congress the
provisions of that public law amending the Rules of the House were made
applicable to the third concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
1980 as well as the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1981 (H. Res. 642, Apr. 23, 1980, pp. 8789–90). The deadline for sub-
mitting views and estimates to the Budget Committee has changed several
times (Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, sec.
232(c), P.L. 99–177; Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, sec. 10104, P.L. 105–
33; H. Res. 5, 106th Cong., Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A former paragraph direct-
ing standing committees to submit reconciliation recommendations to the
Budget Committee was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47), but committees are still required to submit such rec-
ommendations under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Paragraph
(f)(2) was amended in the 107th Congress to reflect the repeal of former
[497]
rule XXIII (‘‘Statutory Limit on Public Debt’’) (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 24), which was reinstated in the 108th Congress as rule XXVII
(sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7), renumbered in the 110th Congress
as rule XXVIII (sec. 301, P.L. 110–81), and repealed in the 112th Congress
(sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). A gender-based reference was
l).
Election and membership of standing com-

mittees
5. (a)(1) The standing committees specified in
§ 757. Electing clause 1 shall be elected by the
committees.
House within seven calendar days
after the commencement of each Congress, from
nominations submitted by the respective party
caucus or conference. A resolution proposing to
change the composition of a standing committee
shall be privileged if offered by direction of the
party caucus or conference concerned.
The old rule entrusting the appointment of committees to the Speaker
was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1790 and in 1860 (IV, 4448–4476).
Committees are now elected on resolutions offered from the floor (VIII,
2171) and it is in order to move the previous question on each resolution
(VIII, 2174). The resolution is not divisible (clause 5 of rule XVI), and
is privileged (VIII, 2179) if offered by direction of the respective party cau-
cus (a requirement that was made part of the rules effective January 3,
1975, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470)). That same resolution also eliminated the
designations in the rules of the numbers of Members comprising the stand-
ing committees, thereby permitting the House to establish committee size
by the numbers of Members elected to each committee pursuant to this
paragraph. The role of the party caucuses in presenting privileged resolu-
tions to the House electing Members to committees is discussed in detail
in Deschler, ch. 17, § 9. In the 99th Congress the requirement for election
of standing committees within the first seven calendar days and the con-
ferral of privileged status on resolutions from the party caucuses to change
the composition of standing committees were added by section 227 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–
177). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 6 of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
[498]
(2)(A) The Committee on the Budget shall be

§ 758. Budget, composed of members as follows:
composition of.
(i) Members, Delegates, or the Resident

Commissioner who are members of other
standing committees, including five from the
Committee on Appropriations, five from the
Committee on Ways and Means, and one from
the Committee on Rules;
(ii) one Member designated by the elected
leadership of the majority party; and
(iii) one Member designated by the elected
leadership of the minority party.
(B) Except as permitted by subdivision (C), a
member of the Committee on the Budget other
than one described in subdivision (A)(ii) or
(A)(iii) may not serve on the committee during
more than four Congresses in a period of six suc-
cessive Congresses (disregarding for this purpose
any service for less than a full session in a Con-
gress).
(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner may exceed the limitation of subdivision
(B) if elected to serve a second consecutive Con-
gress as the chair or a second consecutive Con-
gress as the ranking minority member.
This paragraph (formerly clause 1(d) of rule X) was amended in the 96th
Congress to relax the limitation on Members’ service on the Budget Com-
mittee to three Congresses (from two) in any period of five successive Con-
gresses, to exempt representatives from the party leaderships from the
limitation, and to permit an incumbent chair who had served on the com-
mittee for three Congresses and as chair for not more than one Congress
to be eligible for reelection as chair for one additional Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8). It was again amended in the 100th Congress to
eliminate as obsolete the words ‘‘beginning after 1974’’ following ‘‘any pe-
riod of five successive Congresses’’ as a measure of permissible terms of
[499]
service on the committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). It was further
amended in the 101st Congress to permit, in that Congress only, a minority
Member who had served on the committee for three terms to run within
the party’s caucus for the position of ranking minority member and thus
be able to serve on the committee for one additional Congress, and to permit
a Member elected as ranking minority member during a third term on
the committee to serve one additional term on the committee as the ranking
minority member (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). It was again amended
in the 102d Congress to extend the waiver of the tenure restriction for
the ranking minority member of the committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39), but in the 103d Congress that provision was stricken as obsolete
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). In the 104th Congress the limitation on
a Member’s service on the committee was relaxed to four Congresses (from
three) in any period of six successive Congresses, with the exception that
a Member who has served as chair or as ranking minority member during
a fourth such Congress may serve in either capacity during a fifth, so
long as not thereby exceeding two consecutive terms as chair or as ranking
minority member (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). The tenure
limitation of clause 5(a)(2)(B) was suspended during the 106th Congress
(sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The special tenure limitation
for the chair and ranking minority member was replaced in the 108th
Congress with a provision subjecting the chair only to the overall tenure
limitation that applies to all standing committee chairs (sec. 2(e–1), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). This provision was replaced in the 111th Con-
gress with an exception to the tenure limitation for the second consecutive
Congress in which a chair or ranking minority member serves (sec. 2(d),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). In the 109th Congress subdivisions (A)(ii)
and (A)(iii) were amended to address a member designated by the elected
leadership as opposed to a member of the elected leadership of each party,
and a conforming change was made to subdivision (B) (sec. 2(c), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43).
In the 94th Congress the membership of the committee was increased
to 25 (from 23), with 13 (rather than 11) members elected from committees
other than Appropriations and Ways and Means (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975,
p. 20). The membership was increased again in the 97th Congress to 30,
with 28 from other standing committees and two from the respective lead-
erships (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113), and again in the 98th Congress
to 31 (unanimous-consent order, Feb. 7, 1983, p. 1791). In the 99th Con-
gress, the House amended this paragraph to remove any numerical limita-
tion on the membership of the committee (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393).
In the 108th Congress the composition of the committee was changed to
require inclusion of one member from the Committee on Rules (sec. 2(e),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
was found in former clause 1(d) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[500]
(3)(A) The Committee on Ethics shall be com-

§ 759. Committee on posed of 10 members, five from the
Ethics.
majority party and five from the
minority party.
(B) Except as permitted by subdivision (C), a
member of the Committee on Ethics may not
serve on the committee during more than three
Congresses in a period of five successive Con-
gresses (disregarding for this purpose any serv-
ice for less than a full session in a Congress).
(C) A member of the Committee on Ethics may
serve on the committee during a fourth Congress
in a period of five successive Congresses only as
either the chair or the ranking minority member
of the committee.
(4)(A) At the beginning of a Congress, the
Speaker or a designee and the Minority Leader
or a designee each shall name 10 Members, Del-
egates, or the Resident Commissioner from the
respective party of such individual who are not
members of the Committee on Ethics to be avail-
able to serve on investigative subcommittees of
that committee during that Congress. The lists
of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commis-
sioner so named shall be announced to the
House.
(B) Whenever the chair and the ranking mi-
nority member of the Committee on Ethics joint-
ly determine that Members, Delegates, or the
Resident Commissioner named under subdivi-
sion (A) should be assigned to serve on an inves-
tigative subcommittee of that committee, each of
them shall select an equal number of such Mem-
[501]
bers, Delegates, or Resident Commissioner from

the respective party of such individual to serve
on that subcommittee.
Before the 93d Congress, the rule that established the size of the Com-
mittee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) at 12 members
also required that its membership be equally divided between the parties.
Effective in the 93d Congress, the ratio of the committee was codified in
the first sentence of subparagraph (3)(A) (formerly clause 6(a)(2)) (H. Res.
988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 added a sen-
tence to limit service on the committee (P.L. 101–194, Nov. 30, 1989), which
was amended in the 105th and 106th Congresses (sec. 2, H. Res. 168,
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A requirement
that two members from each party rotate off the committee was adopted
in the 105th Congress (sec. 2, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336), but
was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subpara-
graph (4) (formerly clause 6(a)(3)) was adopted in the 105th Congress (sec.
1, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19335). The 106th Congress formally
reduced the size of the committee to 10 members, which was the de facto
size of the committee in the 105th Congress even though the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 required each party caucus to nominate seven Members (sec.
803(b), P.L. 101–194, Nov. 30, 1989; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Gender-
based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). This subparagraph was amended in the 112th Con-
gress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 6(a) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
(b)(1) Membership on a standing committee

during the course of a Congress shall be contin-
§ 760. Party gent on continuing membership in
membership as basis
for election. the party caucus or conference that
nominated the Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner concerned for election
to such committee. Should a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner cease to be a member
of a particular party caucus or conference, that
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
shall automatically cease to be a member of each
standing committee to which elected on the
[502]
basis of nomination by that caucus or con-

ference. The chair of the relevant party caucus
or conference shall notify the Speaker whenever
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
ceases to be a member of that caucus or con-
ference. The Speaker shall notify the chair of
each affected committee that the election of such
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to
the committee is automatically vacated under
this subparagraph.
(2)(A) Except as specified in subdivision (B), a
may not serve simultaneously as a member of
more than two standing committees or more
than four subcommittees of the standing com-
mittees.
(B)(i) Ex officio service by a chair or ranking
minority member of a committee on each of its
subcommittees under a committee rule does not
count against the limitation on subcommittee
service.
(ii) Service on an investigative subcommittee
of the Committee on Ethics under paragraph
(a)(4) does not count against the limitation on
subcommittee service.
(iii) Any other exception to the limitations in
subdivision (A) may be approved by the House
on the recommendation of the relevant party
caucus or conference.
(C) In this subparagraph the term ‘‘sub-
committee’’ includes a panel (other than a spe-
cial oversight panel of the Committee on Armed
Services), task force, special subcommittee, or
[503]
other subunit of a standing committee that is es-

tablished for a cumulative period longer than six
months in a Congress.
The requirement that membership on standing committees be contingent
on continuing membership in a party caucus or conference, along with
the mechanism for the automatic vacating of a Member’s election to com-
mittee should party relationship cease, was added to the rules in the 98th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The limitation on full committee
and subcommittee assignments was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 204,
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; see H. Res. 11, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 549). The
exception for special service on an investigative subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) from the limita-
tion on subcommittee service was added in the 105th Congress (sec. 1,
H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19335). A technical correction was effected
in the 106th and 112th Congresses to conform references to a renamed
committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
A technical correction to paragraph (b)(2)(B)(iii) was effected in the 109th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44). Gender-based references
p. l).
The Speaker lays before the House communications relative to the re-
moval of a Member from committee pursuant to this clause (see, e.g., Sept.
11, 1984, p. 24790; Feb. 22, 1989, p. 2500; May 10, 1995, p. 12396; July
19, 1999, p. 16586; Feb. 1, 2000, p. 401; Sept. 13, 2000, p. 17832). The
Speaker also lays before the House a communication from a Member an-
nouncing a change in party affiliation (Sept. 13, 2000, p. 17832). On one
occasion there was a delay in laying the latter communication before the
House, and the House by unanimous consent retroactively changed infor-
mational voting records from the date on the communication (Sept. 13,
2000, p. 17832). Instance where a Member submitted his resignation from
a committee on grounds of disqualifying personal interest (VIII, 3074).
The earlier practice was for the minority party to handle committee assign-
ments for third-party Members (VIII, 2184–2185). In the latter practice,
a major party takes that responsibility by separate resolution (see, e.g.,
H. Res. 45, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2171).
(c)(1) One of the members of each standing

committee shall be elected by the
§ 761. Committee
chairs.
House, on the nomination of the
majority party caucus or conference, as chair
thereof. In the absence of the member serving as
chair, the member next in rank (and so on, as
often as the case shall happen) shall act as
[504]
chair. Rank shall be determined by the order

members are named in resolutions electing them
to the committee. In the case of a vacancy in the
elected chair of a committee, the House shall
elect another chair.
(2) Except in the case of the Committee on
Rules, a member of a standing committee may
not serve as chair of the same standing com-
mittee, or of the same subcommittee of a stand-
ing committee, during more than three consecu-
tive Congresses (disregarding for this purpose
any service for less than a full session in a Con-
gress).
The requirement that nominations for chairs be submitted by the major-
ity party caucus was made part of the rules effective January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). A provision addressing
temporary and permanent vacancies in chairs was adopted on April 5,
1911 (VIII, 2201), and was continued in the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), but the 111th Congress deleted such references
when clarifying the devolution of authority in case of absence or vacancy
(sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). The 104th Congress adopted
a limitation on terms for committee and subcommittee chairs (sec. 103(b),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 109th Congress excepted the Com-
mittee on Rules from that limitation (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 43). The 111th Congress repealed the limitation (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. l) and the 112th Congress restored it (sec. 2(e)(12), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Gender-based references were eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found
in former clause 6(c) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the 102d Congress a resolution included as a matter properly inci-
dental to its election of the chair of a standing committee a proviso that
his powers and duties be exercised by the vice chair until otherwise ordered
by the House (H. Res. 43, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2169; Feb. 6, 1991, p. 3198).
In the 103d Congress a privileged resolution, offered at the direction of
the Democratic Caucus, authorized a named acting chair to exercise the
powers and duties of a chair of a standing committee until otherwise or-
dered by the House (H. Res. 396, Mar. 23, 1994, p. 6093). Upon the resigna-
tion of a chair, the acting chair assumes that role without further action
of the House (Mar. 3, 2010, p. l). The Chair has refused to respond to
a parliamentary inquiry seeking hypothetical guidance on how a Member,
[505]
having resigned as chair of a committee, could be reinstated in that role

(Mar. 3, 2010, p. l). A Member may resign the role of acting chair (Mar.
4, 2010, p. l), in which case the member third in rank assumes the role
of acting chair (Mar. 4, 2010, p. l).
(d)(1) Except as permitted by subparagraph

(2), a committee may have not more
§ 762. Requirement for
subcommittees.
than five subcommittees.
(2) A committee that maintains a sub-
committee on oversight may have not more than
six subcommittees. The Committee on Appro-
priations may have not more than 13 sub-
committees. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform may have not more than
seven subcommittees.
This paragraph was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(b), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462), replacing a requirement that all standing commit-
tees having more than 20 members (except the Committee on the Budget)
establish at least four subcommittees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20).
In the 106th Congress the paragraph was amended to delete the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure from the list of exceptions to the
general rule and to add a new exception for committees that maintain
a subcommittee on oversight (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 110th
Congress it was amended to reflect a change in the name of a committee
(sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
6(d) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Notwithstanding clause 5(d), the Committee on Oversight and Govern-
ment Reform was permitted to have not more than eight subcommittees
during the 106th and 107th Congresses (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47; sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26); the Committee on Foreign
Affairs was permitted to have not more than six during the 107th and
108th Congresses and not more than seven during the 109th through 112th
Congresses (sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(b),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(b), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l); the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure was permitted to have not more than
six during the 107th through 112th Congresses (sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 26; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11; sec. 3(b), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted
Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 3(k), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l); and the Committee on Armed Services was permitted
[506]
to have not more than six during the 108th and 109th Congresses and
not more than seven during the 110th through 112th Congresses (sec. 3(b),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44;
sec. 511(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(1),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
In the 108th Congress the Committee on Appropriations reorganized its
subcommittees to reflect the creation of the new Department on Homeland
Security (P.L 107–296) by creating a new subcommittee on Homeland Secu-
rity and combining the subcommittees on Transportation and Treasury,
Postal Service and General Government. That committee reduced the num-
ber of its subcommittees to 10 in the 109th Congress, and increased it
to 12 in the 110th Congress. In each case, the committee’s reorganization
was in compliance with this clause.
(e) The House shall fill a vacancy on a stand-

ing committee by election on the nomination of
the respective party caucus or conference.
This paragraph was first adopted in the 62d Congress (VIII, 2178). At
the beginning of the 80th Congress it was amended to prevent a Member
from serving on more than one standing committee, except that Members
elected to serve on the Committees on District of Columbia or Un-American
Activities (renamed the Committee on Internal Security and jurisdiction
redefined on Feb. 19, 1969, p. 3723) could be elected to serve on not more
than two standing committees, and that Members of the majority party,
serving on the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments
(changed to Committee on Government Operations July 3, 1952, p. 9217)
or House Administration could be elected to serve on not more than two
standing committees. This limitation was continued through the 80th, 81st,
and part of the 82d Congresses until July 3, 1952 (p. 9217) when it was
modified so that Members elected to serve on the Committees on the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Government Operations, Un-American Activities, or
House Administration could be elected to serve on not more than two stand-
ing committees. It was restored to its original form by amendment on Janu-
ary 13, 1953 (p. 368) so that there was no limitation in House rules on
the number of committees to which a Member may be elected until the
104th Congress added paragraph (b)(2) (see § 760, supra). Party caucuses
or conferences have also placed restrictions on committee assignments.
The role of the respective party caucus or conference in making nomina-
tions to fill vacancies in standing committees was made part of the rule
in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 6(e) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Form of resolution electing a Member to a committee and fixing rank
thereon (Jan. 23, 1947, p. 536; H. Res. 157, May 25, 1995, p. 14424). The
House by unanimous consent fixed the relative rank of two Members on
[507]
§ 763–§ 764 Rule X, clause 6
a committee where an error had been made on the original appointment

(Jan. 20, 1947, p. 481). The House has filled a vacancy on a standing com-
mittee (H. Res. 43, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2169) with a Member subsequently
designated by the party caucus as ‘‘temporary’’ (in order to avoid caucus
limitations on committee assignments) (Feb. 5, 1991, p. 2814).
Expense resolutions
6. (a) Whenever a committee, commission, or
§ 763. Primary expense other entity (other than the Com-
resolution.
mittee on Appropriations) is grant-
ed authorization for the payment of its expenses
(including staff salaries) for a Congress, such au-
thorization initially shall be procured by one pri-
mary expense resolution reported by the Com-
mittee on House Administration. A primary ex-
pense resolution may include a reserve fund for
unanticipated expenses of committees. An
amount from such a reserve fund may be allo-
cated to a committee only by the approval of the
Committee on House Administration. A primary
expense resolution reported to the House may
§ 764. Availability of not be considered in the House un-
report.
less a printed report thereon was
available on the previous calendar day. For the
information of the House, such report shall—
(1) state the total amount of the funds to be
provided to the committee, commission, or
other entity under the primary expense reso-
lution for all anticipated activities and pro-
grams of the committee, commission, or other
entity; and
(2) to the extent practicable, contain such
general statements regarding the estimated
foreseeable expenditures for the respective an-
ticipated activities and programs of the com-
[508]
mittee, commission, or other entity as may be

appropriate to provide the House with basic
estimates of the expenditures contemplated by
the primary expense resolution.
(b) After the date of adoption by the House of
§ 765. Additional a primary expense resolution for a
expense resolution.
committee, commission, or other en-
tity for a Congress, authorization for the pay-
ment of additional expenses (including staff sal-
aries) in that Congress may be procured by one
or more supplemental expense resolutions re-
ported by the Committee on House Administra-
tion, as necessary. A supplemental expense reso-
lution reported to the House may not be consid-
ered in the House unless a printed report there-
on was available on the previous calendar day.
For the information of the House, such report
shall—
(1) state the total amount of additional
funds to be provided to the committee, com-
mission, or other entity under the supple-
mental expense resolution and the purposes
for which those additional funds are available;
and
(2) state the reasons for the failure to pro-
cure the additional funds for the committee,
commission, or other entity by means of the
primary expense resolution.
(c) The preceding provisions of this clause do
not apply to—
[509]
(1) a resolution providing for the payment

§ 766. Exception for from committee salary and ex-
certain initial
funding. pense accounts of the House of
sums necessary to pay compensa-
tion for staff services performed for, or to pay
other expenses of, a committee, commission, or
other entity at any time after the beginning of
an odd-numbered year and before the date of
adoption by the House of the primary expense
resolution described in paragraph (a) for that
year; or
(2) a resolution providing each of the stand-
ing committees in a Congress additional office
equipment, airmail and special-delivery post-
age stamps, supplies, staff personnel, or any
other specific item for the operation of the
standing committees, and containing an au-
thorization for the payment from committee
salary and expense accounts of the House of
the expenses of any of the foregoing items pro-
vided by that resolution, subject to and until
enactment of the provisions of the resolution
as permanent law.
Paragraphs (a)–(c) of this clause were contained originally in section
110(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and
were added to the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), the authority of all committees to incur expenses, including trav-
el expenses, was made contingent upon adoption by the House of resolu-
tions reported pursuant to this clause (clause 1(b) of rule XI). The clause
was amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70)
to extend its applicability to all committees, commissions, and entities rath-
er than just to standing committees. Paragraphs (a)–(c) were amended
in the 104th Congress to institute biennial funding of committee expenses
and to require that all committee staff salaries and expenses (including
statutory staff) be authorized by expense resolution (sec. 101(c), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). In the 105th Congress paragraph (a) was amended
[510]
to permit a primary expense resolution to include a reserve fund for unan-

ticipated expenses of committees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A tech-
nical correction to paragraphs (a) and (b) was effected in the 106th Con-
gress to conform references to a renamed committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
The Committee on Appropriations is not covered by this clause, but is
reimbursed by funds in appropriation acts for expenses of examinations
of estimates of appropriations in the field (31 U.S.C. 1108). An exemption
from this clause for the Committee on the Budget was effective from the
enactment of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through the 103d Con-
gress.
Based on the exception stated in paragraph (c), a resolution establishing
a task force of members of a standing committee and providing for the
payment of its expenses from the contingent fund of the House (now re-
ferred to as ‘‘applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1)
of rule X’’) was held not to be subject to a point of order under clause
5(a) of rule XI (now clause 6(a) of this rule) for lack of report language
detailing the funding provided, because the resolution was called up at
the beginning of the session before consideration of a primary expense
resolution for all committees for that calendar year (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1621).
(d) From the funds made available for the ap-

§ 767. Funds for pointment of committee staff by a
committee staffs;
expense resolutions. primary or additional expense reso-
lution, the chair of each committee
shall ensure that sufficient staff is made avail-
able to each subcommittee to carry out its re-
sponsibilities under the rules of the committee
and that the minority party is treated fairly in
the appointment of such staff.
Paragraph (d) was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(c)(4), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). A preceding form of the paragraph, first adopted
in the 94th Congress, authorized the chair and ranking minority member
of a subcommittee each to appoint one staff member to the subcommittee
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). As adopted in the 93d Congress to take
effect on the first day of the 94th Congress, the paragraph had required
that each standing committee, upon request of a majority of its minority
members, devote one-third of its staffing funds to the needs of the minority
(H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). As adopted in the 92d Congress,
the paragraph required that the minority be accorded fair consideration
in the appointment of committee staff (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144).
[511]
was found in former clause 5(d) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
(e) Funds authorized for a committee under

this clause and clauses 7 and 8 are for expenses
incurred in the activities of the committee.
was found in former clause 2(n)(1) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
Interim funding
7. (a) For the period beginning at noon on Jan-
§ 768. Interim funding. uary 3 and ending at midnight on
March 31 in each odd-numbered

year, such sums as may be necessary shall be
paid out of the committee salary and expense ac-
counts of the House for continuance of necessary
investigations and studies by—
(1) each standing and select committee es-
tablished by these rules; and
(2) except as specified in paragraph (b), each
select committee established by resolution.
(b) In the case of the first session of a Con-
gress, amounts shall be made available for a se-
lect committee established by resolution in the
preceding Congress only if—
(1) a resolution proposing to reestablish
such select committee is introduced in the
present Congress; and
(2) the House has not adopted a resolution
of the preceding Congress providing for termi-
nation of funding for investigations and stud-
ies by such select committee.
[512]
(c) Each committee described in paragraph (a)

shall be entitled for each month during the pe-
riod specified in paragraph (a) to 9 percent (or
such lesser percentage as may be determined by
the Committee on House Administration) of the
total annualized amount made available under
expense resolutions for such committee in the
preceding session of Congress.
(d) Payments under this clause shall be made
on vouchers authorized by the committee in-
volved, signed by the chair of the committee, ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (e), and approved
by the Committee on House Administration.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule
of the House, or other authority, from noon on
January 3 of the first session of a Congress until
the election by the House of the committee con-
cerned in that Congress, payments under this
clause shall be made on vouchers signed by the
ranking member of the committee as it was con-
stituted at the expiration of the preceding Con-
gress who is a member of the majority party in
the present Congress.
(f)(1) The authority of a committee to incur ex-
penses under this clause shall expire upon adop-
tion by the House of a primary expense resolu-
tion for the committee.
(2) Amounts made available under this clause
shall be expended in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Committee on House Adminis-
tration.
(3) This clause shall be effective only insofar
as it is not inconsistent with a resolution re-
[513]
ported by the Committee on House Administra-

tion and adopted by the House after the adop-
tion of these rules.
This clause (formerly clause 5(f) of rule XI) was originally adopted in
the 99th Congress to provide automatic interim funding for committees
at the beginning of a Congress (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). Resolutions
providing such interim funding had been routinely adopted at the con-
vening of Congress before the adoption of this standing authority. In the
100th Congress, the provision was amended to make the automatic com-
mittee funding mechanism applicable to the first three months of the sec-
ond session of a Congress, as well as the first session, and to authorize
the Committee on House Administration to establish interim funding for
any committee at a percentage lower than 9 percent of the total annualized
amount (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). In the 104th and 106th Congresses
technical corrections were effected to conform references to a renamed com-
mittee (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Clerical corrections were effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Paragraph (e) was simplified and a gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (secs. 2(l), 2(m),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(f) of rule
XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
At its organization the 104th Congress suspended the operation of para-
graph (f) in favor of special provisions for interim funding in light of its
abolishment of three standing committees, its reduction in the overall num-
ber of committee staff, and its institution of biennial primary expense reso-
lutions (sec. 101(c)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The House by unani-
mous consent has agreed to a resolution providing funding for interim ex-
penses of a new select committee (Feb. 13, 2003, p. 3793) and a new stand-
ing committee (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
Travel
8. (a) Local currencies owned by the United
§ 769. Committee States shall be made available to
travel.
the committee and its employees
engaged in carrying out their official duties out-
side the United States or its territories or pos-
sessions. Appropriated funds, including those
authorized under this clause and clause 6, may
not be expended for the purpose of defraying ex-
penses of members of a committee or its employ-
[514]
ees in a country where local currencies are avail-

able for this purpose.
(b) The following conditions shall apply with
respect to travel outside the United States or its
territories or possessions:
(1) A member or employee of a committee
may not receive or expend local currencies for
subsistence in a country for a day at a rate in
excess of the maximum per diem set forth in
applicable Federal law.
(2) A member or employee shall be reim-
bursed for the expenses of such individual for
a day at the lesser of—
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable
Federal law; or
(B) the actual, unreimbursed expenses
(other than for transportation) incurred dur-
ing that day.
(3) Each member or employee of a com-
§ 770. Travel reports. mittee shall make to the chair of
the committee an itemized report
showing the dates each country was visited,
the amount of per diem furnished, the cost of
transportation furnished, and funds expended
for any other official purpose and shall sum-
marize in these categories the total foreign
currencies or appropriated funds expended.
Each report shall be filed with the chair of the
committee not later than 60 days following the
completion of travel for use in complying with
reporting requirements in applicable Federal
law and shall be open for public inspection.
[515]
(c)(1) In carrying out the activities of a com-

mittee outside the United States in a country
where local currencies are unavailable, a mem-
ber or employee of a committee may not receive
reimbursement for expenses (other than for
transportation) in excess of the maximum per
diem set forth in applicable Federal law.
(2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed
for the expenses of such individual for a day, at
the lesser of—
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable Fed-
eral law; or
(B) the actual unreimbursed expenses (other
than for transportation) incurred during that
day.
(3) A member or employee of a committee may
not receive reimbursement for the cost of any
transportation in connection with travel outside
the United States unless the member or em-
ployee actually paid for the transportation.
(d) The restrictions respecting travel outside
the United States set forth in paragraph (c) also
shall apply to travel outside the United States
by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House authorized
under any standing rule.
Before the adoption of this clause (formerly clause 2(n) of rule XI) and
of clause 1(b) of rule XI under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470),
each committee was given separate authority to incur expenses in connec-
tion with its investigations and studies, and certain committees were au-
thorized to use local currencies for foreign committee travel, in resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules in each Congress. This clause was
amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) to clarify
the availability of local currencies for travel outside the United States and
[516]
Rule X, clause 9 § 771–§ 773
its territories and possessions, to require reports within 60 days for use
in complying with statutory reporting requirements, and to authorize the
Committee on House Administration to recommend in expense resolutions
expenses for foreign as well as domestic travel. This clause was further
amended on March 2, 1977 (H. Res. 287, 95th Cong., pp. 5933–53) to limit
all travel expenses to the maximum per diem rate or actual, unreimbursed
expenses, whichever is less. Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(n) of rule
XI, except that the ‘‘lame duck’’ travel prohibitions formerly found in clause
2(n)(5) of rule XI and clause 8 of rule I were transferred to former rule
XXV (redesignated as rule XXIV in the 107th Congress) (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Clerical corrections were effected and gender-based ref-
erences were eliminated in the 111th Congress (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
Under section 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C.
1754(b)), foreign local currencies owned or purchased by the United States
may be used for foreign travel expenses by members or employees of stand-
ing or select committees when authorized by the chair thereof, and by
other Members or employees when authorized by the Speaker. Consoli-
dated committee reports prepared on a quarterly basis, and individual re-
ports required within 30 days after the travel involved, must be forwarded
to the Clerk of the House and published in the Congressional Record.
Committee staffs
9. (a)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2) and para-
§ 771. Thirty graph (f), each standing committee
professional staff.
may appoint, by majority vote, not
more than 30 professional staff members to be
compensated from the funds provided for the ap-
pointment of committee staff by primary and ad-
ditional expense resolutions. Each professional
staff member appointed under this subpara-
§ 772. Assignment. graph shall be assigned to the chair
and the ranking minority member
of the committee, as the committee considers ad-
visable.
(2) Subject to paragraph (f) whenever a major-
§ 773. Minority. ity of the minority party members
of a standing committee (other than
the Committee on Ethics or the Permanent Se-
[517]
lect Committee on Intelligence) so request, not

more than 10 persons (or one-third of the total
professional committee staff appointed under
this clause, whichever is fewer) may be selected,
by majority vote of the minority party members,
for appointment by the committee as profes-
sional staff members under subparagraph (1).
The committee shall appoint persons so selected
whose character and qualifications are accept-
able to a majority of the committee. If the com-
mittee determines that the character and quali-
fications of a person so selected are unaccept-
able, a majority of the minority party members
may select another person for appointment by
the committee to the professional staff until
such appointment is made. Each professional
staff member appointed under this subpara-
graph shall be assigned to such committee busi-
ness as the minority party members of the com-
mittee consider advisable.
This clause (formerly clause 6 of rule XI) had its origins in section 202
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which allocated
up to four nonpartisan professionals to each committee other than Appro-
priations and specifically provided for clerical staff, and which was incor-
porated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Section 302(b) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), which increased
the authorized maximum for professional staff from four to six and added
the concept of minority staffing, was incorporated into the rules in the
92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). In the 93d Congress the
maximum was increased from six to 18, the minority entitlement within
that number was increased from two to six, a requirement that professional
staff be appointed without regard to political affiliation was eliminated,
and prohibitions against consideration of race, creed, sex, or age in the
appointment of staff were added (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
An exemption for the Committee on the Budget was included in section
901 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 330), was later omit-
ted under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470), and was reinserted by the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5,
[518]
Rule X, clause 9 § 774–§ 775
Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). The requirement added in 1975 that staff positions
made available to subcommittee chairs and ranking minority members pur-
suant to former provisions of clause 5 of rule XI be provided from staff
positions available under this clause unless provided in a primary or addi-
tional expense resolution was eliminated in the 104th Congress (sec.
101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 98th Congress added the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the exception for the Com-
mittee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) (H. Res. 58, Mar.
1, 1983, p. 3241). The 101st Congress added an exemption for the Com-
mittee on Rules (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). The Ethics Reform Act
of 1989 struck the antidiscrimination provisions as redundant (P.L. 101–
194, Nov. 30, 1989). The 104th Congress eliminated the former distinction
between professional and clerical staff, set the authorized maximum for
committee staff under expense resolutions at 30, eliminated subcommittee
entitlement to staff, and set the entitlement of the full committee minority
within that number at one-third (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 462). The 104th Congress also mandated that the total number of staff
of House committees be at least one-third less than the corresponding total
in the 103d Congress (sec. 101(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). A gender-
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 112th Con-
gress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Additional staff of committees are authorized by the Committee on House
Administration and agreed to by the House. There is no legal power to
fill a vacancy in the clerkship of a committee after one Congress has expired
and before the next House has been organized (IV, 4539). An assault upon
the clerk of a committee within the walls of the Capitol was held to be
a breach of privilege (II, 1629). The pay of clerks has been the subject
of several decisions (IV, 4536–4538).
Committees may, with the approval of the Committee on House Adminis-
§ 774. Consultants and
tration, procure the temporary or intermittent services
training. of consultants and obtain specialized training for pro-
fessional staff, subject to expense resolutions, under the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, sections 303 and 304 (2 U.S.C.
72a(i) and (j)).
(b)(1) The professional staff members of each

§ 775. Staff duties. standing committee—
(A) may not engage in any work other than
committee business during congressional
working hours; and
[519]
§ 776–§ 777 Rule X, clause 9
(B) may not be assigned a duty other than

one pertaining to committee business.
(2)(A) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to staff
designated by a committee as ‘‘associate’’ or
§ 776. ‘‘Associate’’ or ‘‘shared’’ staff who are not paid ex-
‘‘shared’’ staff.
clusively by the committee, pro-
vided that the chair certifies that the compensa-
tion paid by the committee for any such staff is
commensurate with the work performed for the
committee in accordance with clause 8 of rule
XXIII.
(B) The use of any ‘‘associate’’ or ‘‘shared’’ staff
by a committee other than the Committee on
Appropriations shall be subject to the review of,
and to any terms, conditions, or limitations es-
tablished by, the Committee on House Adminis-
tration in connection with the reporting of any
primary or additional expense resolution.
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 prescribed that staff work be confined
to committee business during congressional working hours but maintained
exceptions for the Committees on the Budget and Rules (P.L. 101–194,
Nov. 30, 1989). The 104th Congress eliminated exceptions by committee
in favor of exceptions for ‘‘associate’’ or ‘‘shared’’ staff (sec. 101(c)(5), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). Technical corrections were effected in the
104th Congress (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077); in the 106th Con-
gress, which conformed references to a renamed committee (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47); in the 107th Congress, which conformed references to a
redesignated rule (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24); and in the
108th Congress, which confined the exception for the Committee on Appro-
priations to subparagraph (B), rather than to the entire paragraph (sec.
2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-based reference was eliminated
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 6 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c) Each employee on the professional or inves-

§ 777. Pay. tigative staff of a standing com-
mittee shall be entitled to pay at a
[520]
single gross per annum rate, to be fixed by the

chair and that does not exceed the maximum
rate of pay as in effect from time to time under
applicable provisions of law.
This provision (formerly clause 6(c) of rule XI) was derived from section
477(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and
was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144). Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), the max-
imum salary was set at level V of the Executive Schedule, rather than
at the highest rate of basic pay law (5 U.S.C. 5332(a)(1)), as specified in
the 1970 Reorganization Act, and effective in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70), the authority for two professional staff to be
paid at level IV of the Executive Schedule was added to the clause. Under
section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (2 U.S.C.
60a–2a), the maximum salary for staff members is now set by pay order
of the Speaker. At the beginning of the 101st Congress, references to par-
ticular levels of the executive schedule were deleted (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1989, p. 72). In the 104th Congress this paragraph was amended to reflect
the elimination of the former distinction between ‘‘professional’’ and ‘‘cler-
ical’’ staff (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). A gender-based
6, 1999, p. 47).
(d) Subject to appropriations hereby author-

ized, the Committee on Appropria-
§ 778. Staff, Committee
on Appropriations.
tions may appoint by majority vote
such staff as it determines to be necessary (in
addition to the clerk of the committee and as-
sistants for the minority). The staff appointed
under this paragraph, other than minority as-
sistants, shall possess such qualifications as the
committee may prescribe.
This paragraph (formerly clause 6(d) of rule XI) derives from section
202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which
was incorporated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). The exemption
was extended to the Committee on the Budget by section 901 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 330). The reference to that com-
mittee was inadvertently omitted by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988, Oct.
[521]
8, 1974, p. 34470) and reinserted by the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
14, 1975, p. 20). The 104th Congress deleted the exemption for the Com-
mittee on the Budget (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). Before
found in former clause 6(d) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(e) A committee may not appoint to its staff an

§ 779. Detailed expert or other personnel detailed
employees.
or assigned from a department or
agency of the Government except with the writ-
ten permission of the Committee on House Ad-
ministration.
This paragraph was contained in section 202(f) of the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was incorporated into the rules
on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). In the 104th and 106th Congresses it was
amended to conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(f) If a request for the appointment of a minor-

ity professional staff member under paragraph
(a) is made when no vacancy exists for such an
appointment, the committee nevertheless may
appoint under paragraph (a) a person selected
by the minority and acceptable to the committee.
A person so appointed shall serve as an addi-
tional member of the professional staff of the
committee until such a vacancy occurs (other
than a vacancy in the position of head of the
professional staff, by whatever title designated),
at which time that person is considered as ap-
pointed to that vacancy. Such a person shall be
paid from the applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X. If such a
vacancy occurs on the professional staff when
seven or more persons have been so appointed
who are eligible to fill that vacancy, a majority
[522]
of the minority party members shall designate

which of those persons shall fill the vacancy.
(g) Each staff member appointed pursuant to
a request by minority party members under
paragraph (a), and each staff member appointed
to assist minority members of a committee pur-
suant to an expense resolution described in
clause 6(a), shall be accorded equitable treat-
ment with respect to the fixing of the rate of
pay, the assignment of work facilities, and the
accessibility of committee records.
(h) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to au-
thorize the appointment of additional profes-
sional staff members of a committee pursuant to
a request under paragraph (a) by the minority
party members of that committee if 10 or more
professional staff members provided for in para-
graph (a)(1) who are satisfactory to a majority of
the minority party members are otherwise as-
signed to assist the minority party members.
Paragraphs (f)–(h) (formerly clause 6(f)–(h) of rule XI) are derived from
section 302(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140)
and were incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470), conforming changes were made in paragraphs (f) and
(h) to reflect increased minority professional and clerical staff permitted
to committees under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. In the 104th
Congress paragraphs (f)–(h) were amended to reflect the elimination of
the former distinction between ‘‘professional’’ and ‘‘clerical’’ staff (sec.
101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 104th Congress also man-
dated that the total number of staff of House committees be at least one-
third less than the corresponding total in the 103d Congress (sec. 101(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). In the 105th Congress paragraph (f) was
amended to update an archaic reference to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of rule XI (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction was effected in the 107th Con-
gress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), and conforming changes
[523]
§ 780–§ 782 Rule X, clause 10
to paragraph (f) were effected in the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec.
2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l).
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2), a com-

mittee may employ nonpartisan
§ 780. Nonpartisan
staff.
staff, in lieu of or in addition to
committee staff designated exclusively for the
majority or minority party, by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members of the major-
ity party and of a majority of the members of the
minority party.
Section 202(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812), which was incorporated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24),
required committee professional staffs to be appointed on a permanent
basis without regard to political affiliation. The concept of minority staffing
was added by section 302(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), paragraph (i) (for-
merly clause 6(i) of rule XI) was added to permit committees to employ
nonpartisan staff upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the members
of each party. In the 104th Congress it was amended to reflect the elimi-
nation of the former distinction between ‘‘professional’’ and ‘‘clerical’’ staff
(sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). Before the House recodified
6(i) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Effective in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70), former
§ 781. Former reports
clause 6(j) of rule XI, which was added on January 3,
on staff. 1953 (p. 24) and which was contained in section 134(b)
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1945, was de-
leted; that clause required committees to report semiannually to the Clerk
on the names, professions, and salaries of committee employees.
Select and joint committees

10. (a) Membership on a select or joint com-
§ 782. Party mittee appointed by the Speaker
membership as basis
for appointment. under clause 11 of rule I during the
course of a Congress shall be con-
tingent on continuing membership in the party
caucus or conference of which the Member, Dele-
[524]
Rule X, clause 10 § 783–§ 784
gate, or Resident Commissioner concerned was a

member at the time of appointment. Should a
cease to be a member of that caucus or con-
ference, that Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner shall automatically cease to be a
member of any select or joint committee to
which assigned. The chair of the relevant party
caucus or conference shall notify the Speaker
whenever a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner ceases to be a member of a party cau-
cus or conference. The Speaker shall notify the
chair of each affected select or joint committee
that the appointment of such Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner to the select or joint
committee is automatically vacated under this
paragraph.
This party membership requirement for select and joint committees,
analogous to clause 5(b), was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, 1983,
Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th
fied its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 6(g) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(b) Each select or joint committee, other than

a conference committee, shall com-
§ 783. Select and joint
committee
compliance. ply with clause 2(a) of rule XI un-
less specifically exempted by law.
(b) was found in clause 2(a) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The extension of clause 2(a) requirements to select and joint committees
was added to clause 2(a) when that rule was rewritten by the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470).
A paragraph (i) of former clause 6 of rule X was incorporated into the
§ 784. Aging.
rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to provide for a permanent se-
[525]
lect committee on aging. That provision was stricken in the 103d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

11. (a)(1) There is established a Permanent
§ 785. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Select Committee on
Intelligence. (hereafter in this clause referred to
as the ‘‘select committee’’). The se-
lect committee shall be composed of not more
than 20 Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner, of whom not more than 12 may
be from the same party. The select committee
shall include at least one Member, Delegate, or
the Resident Commissioner from each of the fol-
lowing committees:
(A) the Committee on Appropriations;
(B) the Committee on Armed Services;
(C) the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and
(D) the Committee on the Judiciary.
(2) The Speaker and the Minority Leader shall
be ex officio members of the select committee
but shall have no vote in the select committee
and may not be counted for purposes of deter-
mining a quorum thereof.
(3) The Speaker and Minority Leader each
may designate a respective leadership staff
member to assist in the capacity of the Speaker
or Minority Leader as ex officio member, with
the same access to committee meetings, hear-
ings, briefings, and materials as employees of
the select committee and subject to the same se-
curity clearance and confidentiality require-
ments as employees of the select committee
under this clause.
[526]
(4)(A) Except as permitted by subdivision (B),

a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner,
other than the Speaker or the Minority Leader,
may not serve as a member of the select com-
mittee during more than four Congresses in a
period of six successive Congresses (disregarding
for this purpose any service for less than a full
session in a Congress).
(B) In the case of a Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner appointed to serve as the
chair or the ranking minority member of the se-
lect committee, tenure on the select committee
shall not be limited.
(b)(1) There shall be referred to the select
committee proposed legislation, messages, peti-
tions, memorials, and other matters relating to
the following:
(A) The Central Intelligence Agency, the Di-
rector of National Intelligence, and the Na-
tional Intelligence Program as defined in sec-
tion 3(6) of the National Security Act of 1947.
(B) Intelligence and intelligence-related ac-
tivities of all other departments and agencies
of the Government, including the tactical in-
telligence and intelligence-related activities of
the Department of Defense.
(C) The organization or reorganization of a
department or agency of the Government to
the extent that the organization or reorganiza-
tion relates to a function or activity involving
intelligence or intelligence-related activities.
(D) Authorizations for appropriations, both
direct and indirect, for the following:
[527]
(i) The Central Intelligence Agency, the

Director of National Intelligence, and the
National Intelligence Program as defined in
section 3(6) of the National Security Act of
1947.
(ii) Intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of all other departments and agen-
cies of the Government, including the tac-
tical intelligence and intelligence-related ac-
tivities of the Department of Defense.
(iii) A department, agency, subdivision, or
program that is a successor to an agency or
program named or referred to in (i) or (ii).
(2) Proposed legislation initially reported by
the select committee (other than provisions sole-
ly involving matters specified in subparagraph
(1)(A) or subparagraph (1)(D)(i)) containing any
matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of a
standing committee shall be referred by the
Speaker to that standing committee. Proposed
legislation initially reported by another com-
mittee that contains matter within the jurisdic-
tion of the select committee shall be referred by
the Speaker to the select committee if requested
by the chair of the select committee.
(3) Nothing in this clause shall be construed
as prohibiting or otherwise restricting the au-
thority of any other committee to study and re-
view an intelligence or intelligence-related activ-
ity to the extent that such activity directly af-
fects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction
of that committee.
[528]
(4) Nothing in this clause shall be construed

as amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the
authority of a standing committee to obtain full
and prompt access to the product of the intel-
ligence and intelligence-related activities of a de-
partment or agency of the Government relevant
to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of
that committee.
(c)(1) For purposes of accountability to the
House, the select committee shall make regular
and periodic reports to the House on the nature
and extent of the intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the various departments and
agencies of the United States. The select com-
mittee shall promptly call to the attention of the
House, or to any other appropriate committee, a
matter requiring the attention of the House or
another committee. In making such report, the
select committee shall proceed in a manner con-
sistent with paragraph (g) to protect national se-
curity.
(2) The select committee shall obtain annual
reports from the Director of National Intel-
ligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of State, and the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. Such reports shall review the
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the agency or department concerned and the in-
telligence and intelligence-related activities of
foreign countries directed at the United States
or its interests. An unclassified version of each
report may be made available to the public at
[529]
the discretion of the select committee. Nothing

herein shall be construed as requiring the public
disclosure in such reports of the names of per-
sons engaged in intelligence or intelligence-re-
lated activities for the United States or the di-
vulging of intelligence methods employed or the
sources of information on which the reports are
based or the amount of funds authorized to be
appropriated for intelligence and intelligence-re-
lated activities.
(3) Within six weeks after the President sub-
mits a budget under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, or at such time as the Com-
mittee on the Budget may request, the select
committee shall submit to the Committee on the
Budget the views and estimates described in sec-
tion 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 regarding matters within the jurisdiction of
the select committee.
(d)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2),
clauses 8(a), (b), and (c) and 9(a), (b), and (c) of
this rule, and clauses 1, 2, and 4 of rule XI shall
apply to the select committee to the extent not
inconsistent with this clause.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of the
first sentence of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, in the
presence of the number of members required
under the rules of the select committee for the
purpose of taking testimony or receiving evi-
dence, the select committee may vote to close a
hearing whenever a majority of those present
determines that the testimony or evidence would
endanger the national security.
[530]
(e) An employee of the select committee, or a

person engaged by contract or otherwise to per-
form services for or at the request of the select
committee, may not be given access to any clas-
sified information by the select committee unless
such employee or person has—
(1) agreed in writing and under oath to be
bound by the Rules of the House, including
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics
and of the select committee concerning the se-
curity of classified information during and
after the period of the employment or contrac-
tual agreement of such employee or person
with the select committee; and
(2) received an appropriate security clear-
ance, as determined by the select committee in
consultation with the Director of National In-
telligence, that is commensurate with the sen-
sitivity of the classified information to which
such employee or person will be given access
by the select committee.
(f) The select committee shall formulate and
carry out such rules and procedures as it con-
siders necessary to prevent the disclosure, with-
out the consent of each person concerned, of in-
formation in the possession of the select com-
mittee that unduly infringes on the privacy or
that violates the constitutional rights of such
person. Nothing herein shall be construed to
prevent the select committee from publicly dis-
closing classified information in a case in which
it determines that national interest in the disclo-
[531]
sure of classified information clearly outweighs

any infringement on the privacy of a person.
(g)(1) The select committee may disclose pub-
licly any information in its possession after a de-
termination by the select committee that the
public interest would be served by such disclo-
sure. With respect to the disclosure of informa-
tion for which this paragraph requires action by
the select committee—
(A) the select committee shall meet to vote
on the matter within five days after a member
of the select committee requests a vote; and
(B) a member of the select committee may
not make such a disclosure before a vote by
the select committee on the matter, or after a
vote by the select committee on the matter ex-
cept in accordance with this paragraph.
(2)(A) In a case in which the select committee
votes to disclose publicly any information that
has been classified under established security
procedures, that has been submitted to it by the
executive branch, and that the executive branch
requests be kept secret, the select committee
shall notify the President of such vote.
(B) The select committee may disclose publicly
such information after the expiration of a five-
day period following the day on which notice of
the vote to disclose is transmitted to the Presi-
dent unless, before the expiration of the five-day
period, the President, personally in writing, noti-
fies the select committee that the President ob-
jects to the disclosure of such information, pro-
vides reasons therefor, and certifies that the
[532]
threat to the national interest of the United

States posed by the disclosure is of such gravity
that it outweighs any public interest in the dis-
closure.
(C) If the President, personally in writing, no-
tifies the select committee of objections to the
disclosure of information as provided in subdivi-
sion (B), the select committee may, by majority
vote, refer the question of the disclosure of such
information, with a recommendation thereon, to
the House. The select committee may not pub-
licly disclose such information without leave of
the House.
(D) Whenever the select committee votes to
refer the question of disclosure of any informa-
tion to the House under subdivision (C), the
chair shall, not later than the first day on which
the House is in session following the day on
which the vote occurs, report the matter to the
House for its consideration.
(E) If the chair of the select committee does
not offer in the House a motion to consider in
closed session a matter reported under subdivi-
sion (D) within four calendar days on which the
House is in session after the recommendation
described in subdivision (C) is reported, then
such a motion shall be privileged when offered
by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner. In either case such a motion shall be de-
cided without debate or intervening motion ex-
cept one that the House adjourn.
(F) Upon adoption by the House of a motion to
resolve into closed session as described in sub-
[533]
division (E), the Speaker may declare a recess

subject to the call of the Chair. At the expiration
of the recess, the pending question, in closed ses-
sion, shall be, ‘‘Shall the House approve the rec-
ommendation of the select committee?’’.
(G) Debate on the question described in sub-
division (F) shall be limited to two hours equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the select committee. After
such debate the previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the question of approving
the recommendation without intervening motion
except one motion that the House adjourn. The
House shall vote on the question in open session
but without divulging the information with re-
spect to which the vote is taken. If the rec-
ommendation of the select committee is not ap-
proved, then the question is considered as re-
committed to the select committee for further
recommendation.
(3)(A) Information in the possession of the se-
lect committee relating to the lawful intelligence
or intelligence-related activities of a department
or agency of the United States that has been
classified under established security procedures,
and that the select committee has determined
should not be disclosed under subparagraph (1)
or (2), may not be made available to any person
by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House except as pro-
vided in subdivision (B).
(B) The select committee shall, under such
regulations as it may prescribe, make informa-
[534]
tion described in subdivision (A) available to a

committee or a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner, and permit a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner to attend a hearing of
the select committee that is closed to the public.
Whenever the select committee makes such in-
formation available, it shall keep a written
record showing, in the case of particular infor-
mation, which committee or which Member, Del-
egate, or Resident Commissioner received the in-
formation. A Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who, and a committee that, re-
ceives information under this subdivision may
not disclose the information except in a closed
session of the House.
(4) The Committee on Ethics shall investigate
any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or in-
telligence-related information by a Member, Del-
ployee of the House in violation of subparagraph
(3) and report to the House concerning any alle-
gation that it finds to be substantiated.
(5) Upon the request of a person who is sub-
ject to an investigation described in subpara-
graph (4), the Committee on Ethics shall release
to such person at the conclusion of its investiga-
tion a summary of its investigation, together
with its findings. If, at the conclusion of its in-
vestigation, the Committee on Ethics determines
that there has been a significant breach of con-
fidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a
cer, or employee of the House, it shall report its
[535]
findings to the House and recommend appro-

priate action. Recommendations may include
censure, removal from committee membership,
or expulsion from the House, in the case of a
Member, or removal from office or employment
or punishment for contempt, in the case of an of-
ficer or employee.
(h) The select committee may permit a per-
sonal representative of the President, designated
by the President to serve as a liaison to the se-
lect committee, to attend any closed meeting of
the select committee.
(i) Subject to the Rules of the House, funds
may not be appropriated for a fiscal year, with
the exception of a bill or joint resolution con-
tinuing appropriations, or an amendment there-
to, or a conference report thereon, to, or for use
of, a department or agency of the United States
to carry out any of the following activities, un-
less the funds shall previously have been au-
thorized by a bill or joint resolution passed by
the House during the same or preceding fiscal
year to carry out such activity for such fiscal
year:
(1) The activities of the Director of National
Intelligence and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
(2) The activities of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
(3) The activities of the Defense Intelligence
Agency.
(4) The activities of the National Security
Agency.
[536]
(5) The intelligence and intelligence-related

activities of other agencies and subdivisions of
the Department of Defense.
activities of the Department of State.
activities of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion.
activities of all other departments and agen-
cies of the executive branch.
(j)(1) In this clause the term ‘‘intelligence and
intelligence-related activities’’ includes—
(A) the collection, analysis, production, dis-
semination, or use of information that relates
to a foreign country, or a government, political
group, party, military force, movement, or
other association in a foreign country, and
that relates to the defense, foreign policy, na-
tional security, or related policies of the
United States and other activity in support of
the collection, analysis, production, dissemina-
tion, or use of such information;
(B) activities taken to counter similar activi-
ties directed against the United States;
(C) covert or clandestine activities affecting
the relations of the United States with a for-
eign government, political group, party, mili-
tary force, movement, or other association;
(D) the collection, analysis, production, dis-
semination, or use of information about activi-
ties of persons within the United States, its
territories and possessions, or nationals of the
[537]
United States abroad whose political and re-

lated activities pose, or may be considered by
a department, agency, bureau, office, division,
instrumentality, or employee of the United
States to pose, a threat to the internal secu-
rity of the United States; and
(E) covert or clandestine activities directed
against persons described in subdivision (D).
(2) In this clause the term ‘‘department or
agency’’ includes any organization, committee,
council, establishment, or office within the Fed-
eral Government.
(3) For purposes of this clause, reference to a
department, agency, bureau, or subdivision shall
include a reference to any successor department,
agency, bureau, or subdivision to the extent that
a successor engages in intelligence or intel-
ligence-related activities now conducted by the
department, agency, bureau, or subdivision re-
ferred to in this clause.
(k) Clause 12(a) of rule XXII does not apply to
meetings of a conference committee respecting
legislation (or any part thereof) reported by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
This clause (formerly rule XLVIII) was adopted in the 95th Congress
§ 786. Membership,
(H. Res. 658, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932–49) and has had
administration, several technical amendments: (1) to change the size
jurisdiction. of the committee from 13 to 14 members (H. Res. 70,
96th Cong., Jan. 25, 1979, p. 1023); (2) to conform ref-
erences to a renamed committee (H. Res. 89, 96th Cong., Feb. 5, 1979,
p. 1848); (3) to change the size to not more than 16 members (H. Res.
33, 99th Cong., Jan. 30, 1985, p. 1271); (4) to change the size to not more
than 17 members and to change the cross-reference in clause 7(c)(1) to
include paragraph (a) or (b) (H. Res. 5, 100th Cong., Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6);
(5) to change the size to not more than 19 members (H. Res. 5, 101st
Cong., Jan. 3, 1989, p. 73) and to permit the Speaker to attend meetings
[538]
and have access to information (H. Res. 268, Nov. 14, 1989, p. 28789);
(6) to strike obsolete language relating to tenure restrictions in clause 1
and relating to the requirement for authorizations of appropriations in
clause 9 (H. Res. 5, 102d Cong., Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39); (7) to limit the size
of the panel to 16, with no more than nine members from the same party;
to set the tenure limitation at four Congresses within a period of six Con-
gresses, with exceptions for ongoing service as chair or ranking minority
member; to make the Speaker (rather than the Majority Leader) an ex
officio member of the panel (as opposed to former free access to its meetings
and information); and to conform references to renamed committees (sec.
221, H. Res. 6, 104th Cong., Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469); (8) to make certain
conforming changes (Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, sec. 10104, P.L. 105–
33; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); (9) to increase the size of the committee
to not more than 18 members, of whom not more than 10 shall be of the
same political party (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, 107th Cong., Jan. 3, 2001, p.
25); (10) to make a clerical correction in a cross reference (sec. 2(x), H.
Res. 5, 107th Cong., Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26); (11) to remove the tenure limita-
tion for the chair and ranking minority member (sec. 2(e–1), H. Res. 5,
108th Cong., Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7); (12) to increase the size of the committee
same political party (H. Res. 51, 109th Cong., Jan. 26, 2005, p. 826); (13)
to conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 213(c), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19); (14) to conform jurisdictional statements to changes in
the intelligence community (sec. 504, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted
Jan. 5, 2007)); (15) to eliminate gender-based references (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l); (16) to increase the size of the committee to not
more than 22 members, of whom not more than 13 shall be of the same
political party (H. Res. 97, 111th Cong., Jan. 28, 2009, p. l); (17) to conform
references to a renamed committee and to reduce the size of the committee
same political party (secs. 2(e)(8), 2(e)(11), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
was found in former rule XLVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). By order
of the House, the size of the committee was increased for the 107th Con-
gress to not more than 20 members, of whom not more than 11 shall be
of the same political party (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 25). The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–458) reorganized the intel-
ligence community.
More substantive amendments have been adopted as follows: (1) clause
4 was amended to make former clause 6(c) of rule XI (current clause 9(c)
of rule X) applicable to salaries of the staff of the committee (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16); (2) paragraph (d) (formerly clause 4) was amended
to make an exception to the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI (requiring
a majority of the membership of a committee be present in order to vote
to close a hearing) to allow the committee to vote to go into executive
session if a majority of the members present, there being in attendance
[539]
the requisite number under the committee rules for the purpose of taking
testimony, determine that it is necessary to do so for national security
reasons (but in no event to be determined by less than two members) (H.
Res. 165, Mar. 29, 1979, p. 6820); (3) paragraph (d) (formerly clause 4)
was amended to provide the committee with permanent professional and
clerical staff as provided by former clauses 6(a) and (b) of rule XI (current
clauses 9(a) and (b) of rule X) (H. Res. 58, Mar. 1, 1983, p. 3241); (4)
paragraph (b)(1) (formerly clause 2(a)) was amended to clarify jurisdiction
over the National Foreign Intelligence Program and the tactical intel-
ligence and intelligence-related activities of the Department of Defense
and paragraph (a)(3) (formerly clause 1(b)) was added to clarify staffing
arrangements for the Speaker and the Minority Leader as ex officio mem-
bers (sec. 221, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469).
The resolution creating the committee directed the committee to make
a study with respect to intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the U.S. and to report thereon, together with appropriate recommenda-
tions, not later than the close of the 95th Congress (sec. 3, H. Res. 658;
see H. Rept. 95–1795, Oct. 14, 1978), and transferred to the committee
all records, files, documents, and other materials of the Select Committee
on Intelligence of the 94th Congress in the possession, custody, or control
of the Clerk of the House.
The committee has shared jurisdiction with the Committee on the Judici-
ary over bills concerning electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence (Nov.
4, 1977, p. 37070); concurrent jurisdiction with the Committees on Science,
Space, and Technology and Foreign Affairs over a bill establishing a sat-
ellite monitoring commission (Mar. 15, 1988, p. 3847); and sole jurisdiction
over a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of Defense to furnish
to the House documents and information on Cuban or other foreign military
or paramilitary presence in Panama or the Canal Zone (Apr. 6, 1978, p.
9105).
Paragraph (g)(2) places restrictions on the committee only with respect
to the public disclosure of classified information in the possession of that
committee, and does not prevent the House from determining to release
any matter properly presented to it in secret session pursuant to clause
9 of rule XVII (formerly rule XXIX) (Feb. 25, 1980, p. 3618).
In the 107th Congress the committee was given oversight authority de-
scribed in clause 3(m) of rule X (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
[540]
Rule XI, clause 1 § 787
RULE XI
PROCEDURES OF COMMITTEES AND UNFINISHED

BUSINESS
In general
1. (a)(1)(A) The Rules of the House are the
§ 787. Committee rules of its committees and sub-
procedure.
committees so far as applicable.
(B) Each subcommittee is a part of its com-
mittee and is subject to the authority and direc-
tion of that committee and to its rules, so far as
applicable.
(2)(A) In a committee or subcommittee—
(i) a motion to recess from day to day, or to
recess subject to the call of the Chair (within
24 hours), shall be privileged; and
(ii) a motion to dispense with the first read-
ing (in full) of a bill or resolution shall be priv-
ileged if printed copies are available.
(B) A motion accorded privilege under this
subparagraph shall be decided without debate.
This paragraph was first adopted December 8, 1931, to provide that the
Rules of the House are the rules of the standing committees (without ref-
erence to subcommittees) and to provide for a privileged motion to recess
from day to day (VIII, 2215). The paragraph was amended March 23, 1955,
when the House adopted rules governing committee investigations that
are now embodied in clause 2 (pp. 3569–3585). In the 92d Congress para-
graph (a) was amended in the form contained in the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) to specifically address subcommittees
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). It was amended again in the 99th Con-
gress to allow a privileged motion to dispense with the first reading of
a measure if printed copies are available (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393).
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th
Congress paragraph (a) was reorganized and amended to provide for a
privileged motion to recess subject to the call of the chair (within 24 hours)
(sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). For the requirement in Jefferson’s
[541]
§ 788 Rule XI, clause 1
Manual that a bill or resolution be read in full upon demand, before being
read by paragraphs or sections for amendment, see § 412, supra.
Each committee may appoint subcommittees (VI, 532), which should in-
clude majority and minority representation (IV, 4551), and confer on them
powers delegated to the committee itself (VI, 532) except such powers as
are reserved to the full committee by the Rules of the House; but express
authority also has been given subcommittees by the House (III, 1754–1759,
1801, 2499, 2504, 2508, 2517; IV, 4548).
As indicated in § 369, supra, clause 1(a)(1)(A) enables standing and select
committees to enforce in committee applicable House rules of decorum,
such as clause 2 of rule I and rule XVII.
(b)(1) Each committee may conduct at any

time such investigations and stud-
§ 788. Investigative
authority.
ies as it considers necessary or ap-
propriate in the exercise of its responsibilities
under rule X. Subject to the adoption of expense
resolutions as required by clause 6 of rule X,
each committee may incur expenses, including
travel expenses, in connection with such inves-
tigations and studies.
(2) A proposed investigative or oversight re-
port shall be considered as read in committee if
it has been available to the members for at least
24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
holidays except when the House is in session on
such a day).
(3) A report of an investigation or study con-
ducted jointly by more than one committee may
be filed jointly, provided that each of the com-
mittees complies independently with all require-
ments for approval and filing of the report.
(4) After an adjournment sine die of the last
regular session of a Congress, an investigative
or oversight report may be filed with the Clerk
at any time, provided that a member who gives
timely notice of intention to file supplemental,
[542]
Rule XI, clause 1 § 789–§ 790
minority, or additional views shall be entitled to

not less than seven calendar days in which to
submit such views for inclusion in the report.
Paragraph (b)(1) was incorporated into the rules under the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and, together with clauses 2(m) and 2(n)
of rule XI, eliminated the necessity that each committee obtain such au-
thority each Congress by a separate resolution reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules. Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) were added in the
105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and stylistic
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c) Each committee may have printed and

§ 789. Printing and bound such testimony and other
binding.
data as may be presented at hear-
ings held by the committee or its subcommittees.
All costs of stenographic services and transcripts
in connection with a meeting or hearing of a
committee shall be paid from the applicable ac-
counts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of
rule X.
Paragraph (c) was made part of the rules by the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 105th and 106th Congresses, it was amended
to update a reference to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), and conforming changes were effected
in the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p.
42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Clerical and stylistic changes
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(d)(1) Not later than the 30th day after June

§ 790. Activity reports. 1 and December 1, a committee
shall submit to the House a semi-
annual report on the activities of that com-
mittee.
(2) Such report shall include—
[543]
(A) separate sections summarizing the legis-

lative and oversight activities of that com-
mittee under this rule and rule X during the
applicable period;
(B) in the case of the first such report, a
summary of the oversight plans submitted by
the committee under clause 2(d) of rule X;
(C) a summary of the actions taken and rec-
ommendations made with respect to the over-
sight plans specified in subdivision (B);
(D) a summary of any additional oversight
activities undertaken by that committee and
any recommendations made or actions taken
thereon; and
(E) a delineation of any hearings held pur-
suant to clauses 2(n), (o), or (p) of this rule.
(3) After an adjournment sine die of a regular
session of a Congress, or after December 15,
whichever occurs first, the chair of a committee
may file the second or fourth semiannual report
described in subparagraph (1) with the Clerk at
any time and without approval of the committee,
provided that—
(A) a copy of the report has been available
to each member of the committee for at least
seven calendar days; and
(B) the report includes any supplemental,
minority, or additional views submitted by a
member of the committee.
The provisions of paragraph (d)(1) were first made requirements of the
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144, incorporating
the provisions of sec. 118(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1140)), and effective on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), exemptions from the reporting requirements for
[544]
the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, House Administration,

Rules, and Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) were removed,
so the paragraph from that point applied to all committees. The 104th
Congress added paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to require that activity reports
include separate sections on legislative and oversight activities, including
a summary comparison of oversight plans and eventual recommendations
and actions (sec. 203(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). Paragraph (d)(4)
was added in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 111th Congress,
the House amended subparagraph (3) to require the inclusion of hearings
under paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) of this clause in the oversight section
of activities reports (H. Res. 40, Jan. 14, 2009, p. l), and eliminated a
gender-based reference (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). In the
112th Congress, the paragraph was rewritten entirely to increase to semi-
annual the frequency of reports and to clarify late-session filing (sec.
2(e)(13), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Committee on
Rules is required to include in its activity report a separate item identifying
all waivers of points of order relating to Federal mandates, listed by bill
or joint resolution number and subject matter (sec. 107(b), P.L. 104–4;
109 Stat. 63).
Adoption of written rules

2. (a)(1) Each standing committee shall adopt
§ 791. Committee rules. written rules governing its proce-
dure. Such rules—

(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is
open to the public unless the committee, in
open session and with a quorum present, de-
termines by record vote that all or part of the
meeting on that day shall be closed to the
public;
(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules
of the House or with those provisions of law
having the force and effect of Rules of the
House; and
(C) shall in any event incorporate all of the
succeeding provisions of this clause to the ex-
tent applicable.
[545]
(2) Each committee shall make its rules pub-

licly available in electronic form and submit
such rules for publication in the Congressional
Record not later than 30 days after the chair of
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered
year.
(3) A committee may adopt a rule providing
that the chair be directed to offer a motion
under clause 1 of rule XXII whenever the chair
considers it appropriate.
The requirement that standing committees adopt written rules was first
incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144), having been included in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1140). Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, clause
2(a) became effective in essentially its present form on January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 94th Congress
it was amended to permit a record vote to close the committee meeting
at which committee rules are adopted only on the day of the meeting (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). In the 102d Congress it was amended to
allow a committee 30 days after the election of its members, rather than
after the convening of the Congress, to publish its rules in the Congres-
sional Record (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). The provision requiring publi-
cation of committee rules in the Congressional Record derived from statute
(2 U.S.C. 190a–2 (repealed 1979)). A court interpreted that statute to be
mandatory in a case in which a Senate committee failed to publish in
the Record a rule regarding a quorum for the purpose of taking sworn
testimony. In overturning a perjury conviction, the court held that the
unpublished committee rule was not valid. United States v. Reinecke, 524
F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 112th Congress to
require committee rules to also be publicly available in electronic form,
and to begin the day-count for submission from the election of the chair
(vice the committee) (sec. 2(c)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Subpara-
graph (3) was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
2005, p. 43). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Con-
Committees have historically adopted rules under which they function
(I, 707; III, 1841, 1842; VIII, 2214). Committee rules are compiled by the
Committee on Rules each Congress as a committee print. It is the responsi-
bility of the committees, and not the House, to construe and enforce addi-
tional committee rules on the calling of committee meetings (Speaker Al-
[546]
bert, July 22, 1974, pp. 24436–47). This provision requires a select com-
mittee to publish its adopted rules in the Record (June 25, 1998, p. 14014).
Failure to follow certain procedural requirements imposed on committees
by this rule may invalidate committee actions. Viola-
§ 792. Committee
procedure generally. tion of the requirements as to open meetings and hear-
ings and other hearing irregularities improperly over-
ruled (see clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI) or the prescribed committee procedures
for reporting bills and resolutions (clause 2(h) of rule XI) may in some
instances be the basis for a point of order in the House, resulting in the
recommitment of the bill. However, a point of order does not ordinarily
lie in the House against consideration of a bill by reason of defective com-
mittee procedures occurring before the time the bill is ordered reported
to the House (Procedure, ch. 17, § 11.1).
Many of the procedures applicable to committees derive from Jefferson’s
Manual, which governs the House and its committees in all cases to which
it is applicable (clause 1 of rule XXIX). A committee may act only when
together, and not by separate consultation and consent, nothing being the
report (or recommendation) of the committee except what has been agreed
to in committee actually assembled (see Jefferson’s Manual at § 407, supra).
A measure before a committee for consideration must be read for amend-
ment by section as in the House (see Jefferson’s Manual at §§ 412–414,
supra), and reading of the measure and of amendments thereto must be
in full. The procedures applicable in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole (see §§ 424, 427, supra) generally apply to proceedings in com-
mittees of the House of Representatives, except that because a measure
considered in committee must be read for amendment, a motion to limit
debate under the five-minute rule in committee must be confined to the
portion of the bill then pending. The motion for the previous question may
be applied to a question under debate in committee when it has been read
(or considered as read) for amendment in its entirety.
Committees generally conduct their business under the five-minute rule
but may employ the ordinary motions that are in order in the House, such
as under clause 4 of rule XVI.
Regular meeting days

(b) Each standing committee shall establish
§ 793. Committee regular meeting days for the con-
meetings.
duct of its business, which shall be
not less frequent than monthly. Each such com-
mittee shall meet for the consideration of a bill
or resolution pending before the committee or
the transaction of other committee business on
all regular meeting days fixed by the committee
[547]
unless otherwise provided by written rule adopt-

ed by the committee.
Additional and special meetings
(c)(1) The chair of each standing committee
may call and convene, as the chair considers
necessary, additional and special meetings of the
committee for the consideration of a bill or reso-
lution pending before the committee or for the
conduct of other committee business, subject to
such rules as the committee may adopt. The
committee shall meet for such purpose under
that call of the chair.
(2) Three or more members of a standing com-
mittee may file in the offices of the committee a
written request that the chair call a special
meeting of the committee. Such request shall
specify the measure or matter to be considered.
Immediately upon the filing of the request, the
clerk of the committee shall notify the chair of
the filing of the request. If the chair does not
call the requested special meeting within three
calendar days after the filing of the request (to
be held within seven calendar days after the fil-
ing of the request) a majority of the members of
the committee may file in the offices of the com-
mittee their written notice that a special meet-
ing of the committee will be held. The written
notice shall specify the date and hour of the spe-
cial meeting and the measure or matter to be
considered. The committee shall meet on that
date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of
the notice, the clerk of the committee shall no-
[548]
tify all members of the committee that such spe-

cial meeting will be held and inform them of its
date and hour and the measure or matter to be
considered. Only the measure or matter speci-
fied in that notice may be considered at that
special meeting.
Temporary absence of chair
(d) A member of the majority party on each
standing committee or subcommittee thereof
shall be designated by the chair of the full com-
mittee as the vice chair of the committee or sub-
committee, as the case may be, and shall preside
during the absence of the chair from any meet-
ing. If the chair and vice chair of a committee or
subcommittee are not present at any meeting of
the committee or subcommittee, the ranking ma-
jority member who is present shall preside at
that meeting.
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) were first adopted on December 8, 1931 (VIII,
2208), were amended on January 3, 1953 (p. 24), and were revised both
by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and in the
92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). In the 102d Congress
paragraph (d) was amended to provide that the ranking majority Member
of each committee and subcommittee be designated as its vice chair (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). In the 104th Congress paragraph (d) was
amended to permit the chair of a full committee to designate vice chairs
of the committee and its subcommittees (sec. 223(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
A committee scheduled to meet on stated days, when convened on such
day with a quorum present, may proceed to the transaction of business
regardless of the absence of the chair (VIII, 2213, 2214). These precedents
should be read in light of paragraph (d) and clause 5(c) of rule X. A com-
mittee meeting being adjourned for lack of a quorum, a majority of the
members of the committee may not, without the consent of the chair, call
a meeting of the committee on the same day (VIII, 2213).
[549]
§ 794–§ 795 Rule XI, clause 2
Committee records
(e)(1)(A) Each committee shall keep a complete
§ 794. Required record of all committee action which
records.
shall include—
(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing tran-
script, a substantially verbatim account of re-
marks actually made during the proceedings,
subject only to technical, grammatical, and ty-
pographical corrections authorized by the per-
son making the remarks involved; and
(ii) a record of the votes on any question on
which a record vote is demanded.
(B)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii)
§ 795. Public and subject to paragraph (k)(7), the
availability.
result of each such record vote shall
be made available by the committee for inspec-
tion by the public at reasonable times in its of-
fices and also made publicly available in elec-
tronic form within 48 hours of such record vote.
Information so available shall include a descrip-
tion of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition, the name of each member voting for
and each member voting against such amend-
ment, motion, order, or proposition, and the
names of those members of the committee
present but not voting.
(ii) The result of any record vote taken in ex-
ecutive session in the Committee on Ethics may
not be made available for inspection by the pub-
lic without an affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the committee.
[550]
(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B),

§ 796. Committee files. all committee hearings, records,
data, charts, and files shall be kept
separate and distinct from the congressional of-
fice records of the member serving as its chair.
Such records shall be the property of the House,
and each Member, Delegate, and the Resident
Commissioner shall have access thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner, other than members of the Committee on
Ethics, may not have access to the records of
that committee respecting the conduct of a Mem-
employee of the House without the specific prior
permission of that committee.
(3) Each committee shall include in its rules
standards for availability of records of the com-
mittee delivered to the Archivist of the United
States under rule VII. Such standards shall
specify procedures for orders of the committee
under clause 3(b)(3) and clause 4(b) of rule VII,
including a requirement that nonavailability of a
record for a period longer than the period other-
wise applicable under that rule shall be ap-
proved by vote of the committee.
(4) Each committee shall make its publications
available in electronic form to the maximum ex-
tent feasible.
(5) To the maximum extent practicable, each
committee shall—
(A) provide audio and video coverage of each
hearing or meeting for the transaction of busi-
[551]
ness in a manner that allows the public to

easily listen to and view the proceedings; and
(B) maintain the recordings of such coverage
in a manner that is easily accessible to the
public.
(6) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption
of any amendment to a measure or matter con-
sidered by a committee, the chair of such com-
mittee shall cause the text of each such amend-
ment to be made publicly available in electronic
form.
The first sentence of paragraph (e)(1) was rewritten entirely in the 104th
Congress (sec. 206, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 475). Its predecessor, requir-
ing a complete record of all committee actions, including votes on any ques-
tion on which a roll call was demanded, was enacted as section 133(b)
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and made part
of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). The requirement that
committee roll calls be subject to public inspection was added by section
104(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and
made a part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). The qualified exception for the Committee on Ethics (formerly
Standards of Official Conduct) from the requirement of public availability
of record votes was added in the 105th Congress (sec. 8, H. Res. 168, Sept.
18, 1997, p. 19336). Effective on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), the requirement that proxy votes in committee
be made available for public inspection was eliminated from this paragraph
because proxies were prohibited as of that date, but in the 94th Congress
clause 2(f) of rule XI was amended to permit proxies in committee, and
this paragraph was likewise amended to reinsert the requirement of avail-
ability for public inspection (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). When proxy
voting was again eliminated in the 104th Congress, the reference thereto
in the third sentence of paragraph (e)(1) was deleted (sec. 104(b), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Paragraph (e)(1) was amended in the 112th Con-
gress to require that record votes be electronically available within 48
hours (sec. 2(c)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Paragraph (e)(2) derives
from section 202(d) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812), was made a part of the rules in the 83d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1953, p. 24), and was amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53–70) to restrict the access of Members to certain records
of the Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct). Para-
graph (e)(3) was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989,
p. 72). Paragraph (e)(4) was added in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
[552]
7, 1997, p. 121). Subparagraphs (5) and (6) were added in the 112th Con-
gress (secs. 2(c)(6), 2(c)(9), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Clerical and
106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l). This paragraph was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a
change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Although all Members have access to committee records under this
clause, it is not without qualification. For example, this clause: (1) does
not give a Member the right to make photostatic copies of such records
(Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 14, 1957, pp. 14737–39), and such records may
not be brought into the well of the House if the committee has not author-
ized such action (Speaker Rayburn, June 3, 1960, p. 11820); (2) does not
necessarily apply to records within the possession of the executive branch
that the members of the committee have been allowed to examine under
limited conditions at the discretion of the executive agency in possession
of such materials (Speaker O’Neill, July 31, 1980, p. 20765); (3) does not
apply to records (an executive communication not yet referred to com-
mittee) in the possession of the House (Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19769). In the
105th Congress the House adopted a resolution restricting Members’ access
to documents received from an independent counsel (said to relate to pos-
sible grounds for impeachment of the President) and referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020).
Testimony or evidence taken in executive sessions of a committee is
under the control and subject to the regulation of the committee and, under
clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI (§ 803, infra), cannot be released without the con-
sent of the committee (June 26, 1961, p. 11233; see also Deschler, ch. 17,
§ 18). Furthermore, such access allows a Member to examine executive
session materials only in committee rooms and does not permit a Member
to copy or to take personal notes from such materials, to keep such notes
or copies in personal office files, or to release such materials to the public
without the consent of the committee or subcommittee under clause 2(k)(7)
of rule XI (Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 38470–73). Compare this
clause with clause 11(g)(3) of rule X, which only permits access of nonmem-
bers of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to classified infor-
mation in the possession of that committee when authorized by that com-
mittee. A resolution directing a standing committee to release executive-
session material referred to it by special rule of the House was held to
propose a change in the rules and, therefore, not to constitute a question
of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).
In implementing clause 2(e), committees may prescribe regulations to
govern the manner of access to their records, such as requiring examination
only in committee rooms.
[553]
§ 797–§ 798 Rule XI, clause 2
Prohibition against proxy voting

(f) A vote by a member of a committee or sub-
§ 797. Ban on proxies. committee with respect to any
measure or matter may not be cast
by proxy.
The 104th Congress adopted paragraph (f) in this form (sec. 104, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). An earlier form of the provision was enacted
as section 106(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and made part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res.
1999, p. 47).
The original form of this paragraph permitted committees to adopt writ-
ten rules permitting proxies in writing, designating the persons to execute
them and specifying the measures or matters to which they applied. Effec-
tive January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470),
proxies in committee were prohibited, but in the 94th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), the rule was amended to permit proxies in commit-
tees with additional restrictions requiring an assertion that the grantor
was absent on official business or otherwise unable to attend, requiring
the Member to sign and date the proxy, and permitting general proxies
for procedural matters.
Open meetings and hearings

(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of busi-
§ 798. Open meetings ness, including the markup of legis-
and hearings.
lation, by a standing committee or
subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee
on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to
the public, including to radio, television, and
still photography coverage, except when the
committee or subcommittee, in open session and
with a majority present, determines by record
vote that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session
because disclosure of matters to be considered
would endanger national security, would com-
promise sensitive law enforcement information,
[554]
would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate

any person, or otherwise would violate a law or
rule of the House. Persons, other than members
of the committee and such noncommittee Mem-
bers, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, con-
gressional staff, or departmental representatives
as the committee may authorize, may not be
present at a business or markup session that is
held in executive session. This subparagraph
does not apply to open committee hearings,
which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or
by subparagraph (2).
(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee
or subcommittee (other than the Committee on
Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still
photography coverage, except when the com-
mittee or subcommittee, in open session and
with a majority present, determines by record
vote that all or part of the remainder of that
hearing on that day shall be closed to the public
because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or
other matters to be considered would endanger
national security, would compromise sensitive
law enforcement information, or would violate a
law or rule of the House.
(B) Notwithstanding the requirements of sub-
division (A), in the presence of the number of
members required under the rules of the com-
mittee for the purpose of taking testimony, a
majority of those present may—
(i) agree to close the hearing for the sole
purpose of discussing whether testimony or
[555]
evidence to be received would endanger na-

tional security, would compromise sensitive
law enforcement information, or would violate
clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in
clause 2(k)(5).
(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner may not be excluded from non-
participatory attendance at a hearing of a com-
mittee or subcommittee (other than the Com-
mittee on Ethics or its subcommittees) unless
the House by majority vote authorizes a par-
ticular committee or subcommittee, for purposes
of a particular series of hearings on a particular
article of legislation or on a particular subject of
investigation, to close its hearings to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by
the same procedures specified in this subpara-
graph for closing hearings to the public.
(D) The committee or subcommittee may vote
by the same procedure described in this sub-
paragraph to close one subsequent day of hear-
ing, except that the Committee on Appropria-
tions, the Committee on Armed Services, and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intel-
ligence, and the subcommittees thereof, may
vote by the same procedure to close up to five
additional, consecutive days of hearings.
(3)(A) The chair of a committee shall announce
the date, place, and subject matter of—
(i) a committee hearing, which may not com-
mence earlier than one week after such notice;
or
[556]
(ii) a committee meeting, which may not

commence earlier than the third day on which
members have notice thereof.
(B) A hearing or meeting may begin sooner
than specified in subdivision (A) in either of the
following circumstances (in which case the chair
shall make the announcement specified in sub-
division (A) at the earliest possible time):
(i) the chair of the committee, with the con-
currence of the ranking minority member, de-
termines that there is good cause; or
(ii) the committee so determines by majority
vote in the presence of the number of mem-
bers required under the rules of the committee
for the transaction of business.
(C) An announcement made under this sub-
paragraph shall be published promptly in the
Daily Digest and made publicly available in elec-
tronic form.
(D) This subparagraph and subparagraph (4)
shall not apply to the Committee on Rules.
(4) At least 24 hours prior to the commence-
ment of a meeting for the markup of legislation,
or at the time of an announcement under sub-
paragraph (3)(B) made within 24 hours before
such meeting, the chair of the committee shall
cause the text of such legislation to be made
publicly available in electronic form.
(5) Each committee shall, to the greatest ex-
tent practicable, require witnesses who appear
before it to submit in advance written state-
ments of proposed testimony and to limit their
initial presentations to the committee to brief
[557]
summaries thereof. In the case of a witness ap-

pearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a writ-
ten statement of proposed testimony shall in-
clude a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the
amount and source (by agency and program) of
each Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or con-
tract (or subcontract thereof) received during the
current fiscal year or either of the two previous
fiscal years by the witness or by an entity rep-
resented by the witness. Such statements, with
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of
the witness, shall be made publicly available in
electronic form not later than one day after the
witness appears.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a
point of order does not lie with respect to a
measure reported by a committee on the ground
that hearings on such measure were not con-
ducted in accordance with this clause.
(B) A point of order on the ground described
in subdivision (A) may be made by a member of
the committee that reported the measure if such
point of order was timely made and improperly
disposed of in the committee.
(7) This paragraph does not apply to hearings
of the Committee on Appropriations under
clause 4(a)(1) of rule X.
Subparagraphs (1) and (2), relating to open committee meetings and
hearings, were first made part of the rules on March 7, 1973 (H. Res.
259, 93d Cong., pp. 6713–20). They were amended in the 94th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), to limit to one day (in the case of a meeting)
or to one day plus one subsequent day (in the case of a hearing) the period
during which a committee may close its session. They were again amended
in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) to require that
a majority (rather than a quorum) be present when a committee or sub-
[558]
committee votes to close a meeting or hearing and to provide that a noncom-

mittee Member cannot be excluded from a hearing except by a vote of
the House. However, subparagraph (2) was amended in the 96th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8) to permit a majority of those present under
the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony (not less
than two members as provided in clause 2(h)(2) of rule XI) to vote to close
a hearing either to discuss whether the testimony would endanger national
security or would violate clause 2(k)(5) of this rule, or to proceed to close
the hearing as provided by clause 2(k)(5). In the 98th Congress subpara-
graph (2) was amended further to permit the Committees on Appropria-
tions and Armed Services, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intel-
ligence, and their subcommittees, when voting in open session with a
quorum present, to close a hearing on that particular day and for up to
five additional days, for a total of not to exceed six days (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1983, p. 34). In the 104th Congress the paragraph was amended to
require that meetings and hearings open to the public also be open to
broadcast and photographic media; subparagraph (2) was further amended
to permit closed meetings only on specified conditions and to delete an
exception for meetings relating to internal budget or personnel matters
and to specify a new condition (sensitive law enforcement information)
for closing hearings (sec. 105, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). The para-
graph was also amended to conform references to renamed committees
47). In the 105th Congress subparagraphs (1) and (2) were again amended
to reflect an amendment to former clause 4(e)(3) of rule X (currently clause
3 of rule XI) requiring meetings of the Committee on Ethics to occur in
executive session (except for adjudicatory subcommittee meetings or full
committee sanction hearings) unless opened by an affirmative vote of a
majority of members (sec. 5, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336). Subpara-
graphs (3), (5), (6), and (7) derive from sections 111(b), 113(b), 115(b), and
242(c) respectively of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and became part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470), these provisions were inadvertently omitted from the
rules, and were therefore reinserted in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
14, 1975, p. 20). Subparagraph (3) was amended as follows: in the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113) to add the requirement
of prompt entering of public notice of committee hearings into the com-
mittee scheduling service of the House Information Resources; in the 104th
Congress to permit the calling of a hearing on less than seven days’ notice
upon a determination of good cause either by vote of the committee or
subcommittee or by its chair with the concurrence of its ranking minority
member (H. Res. 43, Jan. 31, 1995, p. 3028); and in the 112th Congress
to apply the notice requirement to meetings (sec. 2(c)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l). A new subparagraph (4) was inserted (and subsequent sub-
paragraphs redesignated) in the 112th Congress to require availability of
[559]
committee markup text (sec. 2(c)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). In

the 105th and 106th Congresses subparagraphs (3) and (2) (respectively)
were amended to effect a technical correction (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (5) (then subparagraph
(4)) was rewritten in the 105th Congress to encourage committees to elicit
curricula vitae and disclosures of certain interests from nongovernmental
witnesses (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121) and in the 112th Congress to
require electronic availability of such disclosures (sec. 2(c)(7), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). This paragraph was amended
in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
In the 105th Congress the House adopted a resolution restricting access
to meetings and hearings held by the Committee on the Judiciary on a
communication received from an independent counsel relating to possible
grounds for impeachment of the President (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998,
p. 20020).
Quorum requirements
(h)(1) A measure or recommendation may not
§ 799. Requirement of be reported by a committee unless a
quorum.
majority of the committee is actu-
ally present.
This subparagraph is from section 133(d) of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was made a part of the rules on January
3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 2(l)(2)(A) of rule XI (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The point of order that a bill was reported from
a committee without a formal meeting and a quorum present comes too
late if debate has started on a bill in the House (VIII, 2223; Feb. 24, 1947,
p. 1374). No committee report is valid unless authorized with a quorum
of the committee actually present at the time the vote is taken (IV, 4584;
VIII, 2211, 2212, 2221, 2222), and although Speakers have indicated that
committee members may come and go during the course of the vote if
the roll call indicates that a quorum was present (VIII, 2222), where it
is admitted that a quorum was not in the room at any time during the
vote and the committee transcript does not show a quorum acting as a
quorum, the Chair will sustain the point of order (VIII, 2212). In the 103d
Congress, this provision was amended to provide that responses to roll
calls in committee be deemed contemporaneous and to require that a point
of no quorum with respect to a committee report be timely asserted in
committee or considered waived (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), but in
[560]
the 104th Congress both of those features were deleted from the rule (sec.
207, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467).
Where the committee transcript was not conclusive and the manager
of the bill gave absolute assurance that a majority of the full committee
was actually present when the bill was ordered reported the Speaker over-
ruled a point of order made under this provision (Oct. 22, 1987, p. 28807).
A point of no quorum pending a committee vote on ordering a measure
reported may provoke a quorum call requiring a majority of the committee
to be present in the committee room. A committee may act only when
together, nothing being the report of the committee except what has been
agreed to in committee actually assembled (see Jefferson’s Manual at § 407,
supra).
(2) Each committee may fix the number of its

§ 800. Reducedmembers to constitute a quorum for
quorum.
taking testimony and receiving evi-
dence, which may not be less than two.
(3) Each committee (other than the Committee
on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budg-
et, and the Committee on Ways and Means) may
fix the number of its members to constitute a
quorum for taking any action other than one for
which the presence of a majority of the com-
mittee is otherwise required, which may not be
less than one-third of the members.
Subparagraphs (2) and (3) (formerly subparagraphs (1) and (2)) were
adopted in the 84th Congress and only related to the authority of a com-
mittee to fix a quorum of not less than two for taking testimony (H. Res.
151, Mar. 23, 1955, pp. 3569, 3585). In the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53–70) subparagraph (3) (formerly subparagraph (2)) was
added to authorize committees to fix a quorum less than a majority for
certain other action. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, paragraph (h) consisted only of subparagraphs (2) and (3) (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (3) was amended in the 107th
Congress to preserve all requirements for a majority quorum found in
House rules (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
By unanimous consent the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) was authorized to receive evidence and take testimony before
a quorum of one of its members for the remainder of the second session
of the 100th Congress (Oct. 13, 1988, p. 30467). Authority for a committee
(other than the committee on Oversight and Government Reform under
clause 4(c) of rule X) to conduct depositions or interrogatories before one
[561]
§ 800a–§ 801 Rule XI, clause 2
member or staff of the committee must be specifically conferred by the

House (see, e.g., H. Res. 167, 105th Cong., June 20, 1997, p. 11677).
(4)(A) Each committee may adopt a rule au-

thorizing the chair of a committee
§ 800a. Postponing
votes in committee.
or subcommittee—
(i) to postpone further proceedings when a
record vote is ordered on the question of ap-
proving a measure or matter or on adopting
an amendment; and
(ii) to resume proceedings on a postponed
question at any time after reasonable notice.
(B) A rule adopted pursuant to this subpara-
graph shall provide that when proceedings re-
sume on a postponed question, notwithstanding
any intervening order for the previous question,
an underlying proposition shall remain subject
to further debate or amendment to the same ex-
tent as when the question was postponed.
This subparagraph was added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(g), H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
Limitation on committee sittings

(i) A committee may not sit during a joint ses-
§ 801. Committees not sion of the House and Senate or
to sit.
during a recess when a joint meet-
ing of the House and Senate is in progress.
A clause regulating when committees could sit had its origin in 1794.
It was omitted from rule XI in the adoption of rules for the 80th Congress
but remained effective as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, the applicable provisions of which were continued as a part of the
Rules of the House. Although the rule formerly prohibited committees from
sitting at any time when the House was in session, it was narrowed to
proscribe sittings during the five-minute rule by the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970 (sec. 117(b); 84 Stat. 1140) and this revision was made
part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
[562]
p. 34470), the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Rules were

exempted from this clause; and in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
1977, pp. 53–70), the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was
also exempted. The Committee on Ways and Means was traditionally per-
mitted to sit during proceedings under the five-minute rule by unanimous
consent granted each Congress (Jan. 29, 1975, p. 1677) until it was exempt-
ed from the rule in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–
113). A provision that special leave to sit be granted if ten Members did
not object was added to the clause in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53–70). An exemption for the Committee on House Administra-
tion and the prohibition against committee meetings during joint meetings
or joint sessions were added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1989, p. 72). In the 103d Congress the prohibition against sitting during
proceedings under the five-minute rule was stricken altogether (H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), but in the 104th Congress the former rule was
reinstated with exemptions for the Committees on Appropriations, the
Budget, Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, and Ways and Means, and
also with the provision for a privileged motion by the Majority Leader
(sec. 208, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467), who controls one hour of debate
thereon (Jan. 23, 1995, p. 2209). In the 105th Congress so much of para-
graph (i) as related to proceedings under the five-minute rule was again
stricken (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Calling and questioning of witnesses

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a
§ 802. Witnesses. committee on a measure or matter,
the minority members of the com-
mittee shall be entitled, upon request to the
chair by a majority of them before the comple-
tion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by
the minority to testify with respect to that meas-
ure or matter during at least one day of hearing
thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each
committee shall apply the five-minute rule dur-
ing the questioning of witnesses in a hearing
until such time as each member of the com-
[563]
mittee who so desires has had an opportunity to

question each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion
permitting a specified number of its members to
question a witness for longer than five minutes.
The time for extended questioning of a witness
under this subdivision shall be equal for the ma-
jority party and the minority party and may not
exceed one hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion
permitting committee staff for its majority and
minority party members to question a witness
for equal specified periods. The time for ex-
tended questioning of a witness under this sub-
division shall be equal for the majority party
and the minority party and may not exceed one
hour in the aggregate.
Paragraph (j)(1) was contained in section 114(b) of the Legislative Reor-
ganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was made a part of the rules
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Paragraph (j)(2)
was added to the rules on that latter date. Although a majority of the
minority members of a committee are entitled to call witnesses selected
by the minority for at least one day of hearings, no rule of the House
requires the calling of witnesses on opposing sides of an issue (Oct. 14,
1987, p. 27921). In the 105th Congress paragraph (j)(2) was redesignated
as (2)(A) and two new subparagraphs were added as (2)(B) and (2)(C) to
enable committees to permit extended examinations of witnesses by des-
ignated members or by staff (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A technical
correction was effected in the 106th Congress to clarify the procedure to
extend questioning, and clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
the House recodified its rules in the same Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Con-
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chair at a hearing shall announce in
§ 803. Hearing an opening statement the subject of
procedure.
the hearing.
[564]
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this

clause shall be made available to each witness
on request.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied
by their own counsel for the purpose of advising
them concerning their constitutional rights.
(4) The chair may punish breaches of order
and decorum, and of professional ethics on the
part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from
the hearings; and the committee may cite the of-
fender to the House for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the
committee that the evidence or testimony at a
hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incrim-
inate any person, or it is asserted by a witness
that the evidence or testimony that the witness
would give at a hearing may tend to defame, de-
grade, or incriminate the witness—
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such
testimony or evidence shall be presented in ex-
ecutive session if, in the presence of the num-
ber of members required under the rules of
the committee for the purpose of taking testi-
mony, the committee determines by vote of a
majority of those present that such evidence
or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive
such testimony in open session only if the
committee, a majority being present, deter-
mines that such evidence or testimony will not
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
person.
[565]
In either case the committee shall afford such

person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a
witness, and receive and dispose of requests
from such person to subpoena additional wit-
nesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5),
the chair shall receive and the committee shall
dispose of requests to subpoena additional wit-
nesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive
session, and proceedings conducted in executive
session, may be released or used in public ses-
sions only when authorized by the committee, a
majority being present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, wit-
nesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn
statements in writing for inclusion in the record.
The committee is the sole judge of the perti-
nence of testimony and evidence adduced at its
hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of
the testimony of such witness given at a public
session or, if given at an executive session, when
authorized by the committee.
The provisions of paragraph (k) were first incorporated into the rules
in the 84th Congress (H. Res. 151, Mar. 23, 1955, pp. 3569, 3585). The
requirement of paragraph (k)(2) that a copy of committee rules be furnished
to each witness was added in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144) and was amended in the 107th Congress to require the committee
to furnish such rules only when the witness so requests (sec. 2(j), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The former requirement of paragraph (k)(9) that
a witness must pay the cost of a transcript copy of testimony was eliminated
under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (k)(5)
was amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16)
to permit a committee or subcommittee to hear testimony asserted to be
[566]
defamatory in executive session upon a determination by a majority of

those present that such testimony is indeed defamatory, degrading, or in-
criminating. It was amended in the 107th Congress to permit such an
assertion to be made by the witness (with respect to that witness) or a
member of the Committee (with respect to any person) (sec. 2(j), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). In the 105th Congress subparagraph (5) was amend-
ed to clarify a majority of those voting (a full quorum being present) may
decide to proceed in open session (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). ‘‘Investigative’’ was
removed from the heading and subparagraphs (1), (3), and (5) of paragraph
(k) in the 107th Congress to conform the rule to House practice, which
is to apply this paragraph to all committee investigative, oversight, or legis-
lative hearings (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based
6, 2009, p. l).
The requirements of clause 2(g)(1) and (2), and of 2(m)(2)(A), of this
rule that a majority of the committee or subcommittee shall constitute
a quorum for the purposes of closing meetings or hearings or issuing sub-
poenas have been construed to require, under clause 2(k)(7) of this rule,
that a majority shall likewise constitute a quorum to release or make public
any evidence or testimony received in any closed meeting or hearing and
any other executive session record of the committee or subcommittee. See
also clauses 11(c) and 11(g) of rule X, which provide that classified material
transmitted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to another
committee of the House becomes the executive session material of the re-
cipient committee by virtue of the nature of the material and the injunction
of clause 11(g) of rule X, which prohibits disclosure of information provided
to committees or Members of the House except in a secret session. For
a discussion of questions of the privileges of the House addressing com-
mittee hearing procedure, see § 704, supra.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views

(l) If at the time of approval of a measure or
§ 804. Minority views. matter by a committee (other than
the Committee on Rules) a member
of the committee gives notice of intention to file
supplemental, minority, or additional views for
inclusion in the report to the House thereon,
that member shall be entitled to not less than
two additional calendar days after the day of
such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
[567]
legal holidays except when the House is in ses-

sion on such a day) to file such views, in writing
and signed by that member, with the clerk of
the committee.
This provision was originally included in section 107 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was incorporated into the
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). In the 104th
Congress it was amended to count as a ‘‘calendar day’’ any day on which
the House is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). In the 105th
Congress it was further amended to reduce the guaranteed time for com-
posing separate views from three full days to two full days after the day
of notice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (l) consisted of this paragraph
and current clause 2(c) of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Power to sit and act; subpoena power

(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of
§ 805. Power to sit and its functions and duties under this
to issue subpoenas;
oaths. rule and rule X (including any mat-
ters referred to it under clause 2 of
rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is au-
thorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))—
(A) to sit and act at such times and places
within the United States, whether the House
is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned,
and to hold such hearings as it considers nec-
essary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses
and the production of such books, records, cor-
respondence, memoranda, papers, and docu-
ments as it considers necessary.
(2) The chair of the committee, or a member
designated by the chair, may administer oaths
to witnesses.
[568]
(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision

(A)(ii), a subpoena may be authorized and issued
by a committee or subcommittee under subpara-
graph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or
series of investigations or activities only when
authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a
majority being present. The power to authorize
and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B)
may be delegated to the chair of the committee
under such rules and under such limitations as
the committee may prescribe. Authorized sub-
poenas shall be signed by the chair of the com-
mittee or by a member designated by the com-
mittee.
(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Ethics, a subpoena may be authorized
and issued only by an affirmative vote of a ma-
jority of its members.
(B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify
terms of return other than at a meeting or hear-
ing of the committee or subcommittee author-
izing the subpoena.
(C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a
committee or subcommittee under subparagraph
(1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or di-
rected by the House.
Before the adoption of clause 2(m) under the Committee Reform Amend-
ments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470), only the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget,
Government Operations, Internal Security, and Standards of Official Con-
duct were permitted by the standing rules to perform the functions as
specified in subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B), and other standing and select
committees were given those authorities by separate resolutions reported
from the Committee on Rules each Congress. In the 94th Congress the
paragraph was amended to require authorized subpoenas to be signed by
[569]
the chair of the full committee or any member designated by the committee
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). In the 95th Congress the paragraph was
amended to permit a subcommittee, as well as a full committee, to author-
ize subpoenas and to allow a full committee to delegate such authority
to the chair of the full committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70).
The special rule for authorizing and issuing a subpoena of a subcommittee
of the Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) was
adopted in the 105th Congress (sec. 15, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p.
19319). In the 106th Congress subparagraph (3)(B) was added, and clerical
in the same Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction
was effected to paragraph (m)(1) in the 107th Congress to correct a cross
reference (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26). Gender-based references
A subpoena issued under this clause need only be signed by the chair
of the committee or by any member designated by the committee, whereas
when the House issues an order or warrant the Speaker must under clause
4 of rule I issue the summons under the Speaker’s hand and seal, and
it must be attested by the Clerk pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule II (formerly
clause 3 of rule III) (III, 1668; see H. Rept. 96–1078, p. 22). Pursuant
to 2 U.S.C. 191, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, or a chair of any joint committee established by a joint
or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or of a committee
of the whole, or of any committee of either House of Congress, is empowered
to administer oaths to witnesses in any case under their examination, and
any Member of either House of Congress may administer oaths to witnesses
in any matter depending in the House of Congress of which a Member,
or any committee thereof.
Although under this clause the Committee on Ethics may issue sub-
poenas in investigating the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of
the House (the extent of the committee’s jurisdiction under rule X and
functions under clause 3 of rule XI), where the House authorizes an inves-
tigation by that committee of other persons not directly associated with
the House, the committee’s jurisdiction is thereby enlarged and a broader
subpoena authority must be conferred on the committee (Mar. 3, 1976,
p. 5165). Subparagraph (3)(B) (formerly subparagraph (2)(B)) has been in-
terpreted to require authorization by the full House before a subcommittee
chair could intervene in a lawsuit in order to gain access to documents
subpoenaed by the subcommittee. In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation,
589 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1979). The authority conferred in clause 2(m)(1)(B)
to require information ‘‘by subpoena or otherwise’’ has not been interpreted
to authorize depositions or interrogatories. Except in the case of the Com-
mittee on Oversight and Government Reform under clause 4(c) of rule X,
[570]
Rule XI, clause 2 § 805a
such authority must be conferred by separate action of the House (see

§ 800, supra).
(n)(1) Each standing committee, or a sub-

§ 805a. Certain committee thereof, shall hold at
hearings required.
least one hearing during each 120-
day period following the establishment of the
committee on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or
mismanagement in Government programs which
that committee may authorize.
(2) A hearing described in subparagraph (1)
shall include a focus on the most egregious in-
stances of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanage-
ment as documented by any report the com-
mittee has received from a Federal Office of the
Inspector General or the Comptroller General of
the United States.
(o) Each committee, or a subcommittee there-
of, shall hold at least one hearing in any session
in which the committee has received disclaimers
of agency financial statements from auditors of
any Federal agency that the committee may au-
thorize to hear testimony on such disclaimers
from representatives of any such agency.
(p) Each standing committee, or a sub-
committee thereof, shall hold at least one hear-
ing on issues raised by reports issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States indi-
cating that Federal programs or operations that
the committee may authorize are at high risk for
waste, fraud, and mismanagement, known as
the ‘‘high-risk list’’ or the ‘‘high-risk series.’’
Paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) were added in the 111th Congress (H. Res.
40, Jan. 14, 2009, p. l).
[571]
Committee on Ethics
3. (a) The Committee on Ethics has the fol-
§ 806. Ethics; lowing functions:
additional duties.
(1) The committee may recommend to the

House from time to time such administrative
actions as it may consider appropriate to es-
tablish or enforce standards of official conduct
for Members, Delegates, the Resident Commis-
sioner, officers, and employees of the House. A
letter of reproval or other administrative ac-
tion of the committee pursuant to an inves-
tigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be
issued or implemented as a part of a report re-
quired by such subparagraph.
(2) The committee may investigate, subject
to paragraph (b), an alleged violation by a
ficer, or employee of the House of the Code of
Official Conduct or of a law, rule, regulation,
or other standard of conduct applicable to the
conduct of such Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee in the per-
formance of the duties or the discharge of the
responsibilities of such individual. After notice
and hearing (unless the right to a hearing is
waived by the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee), the com-
mittee shall report to the House its findings of
fact and recommendations, if any, for the final
disposition of any such investigation and such
action as the committee may consider appro-
priate in the circumstances.
[572]
(3) The committee may report to the appro-

priate Federal or State authorities, either with
the approval of the House or by an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the members of the com-
mittee, any substantial evidence of a violation
by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House, of a
law applicable to the performance of the du-
ties or the discharge of the responsibilities of
such individual that may have been disclosed
in a committee investigation.
(4) The committee may consider the request
of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House for an
advisory opinion with respect to the general
propriety of any current or proposed conduct
of such Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee. With appropriate
deletions to ensure the privacy of the person
concerned, the committee may publish such
opinion for the guidance of other Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, offi-
cers, and employees of the House.
(5) The committee may consider the request
of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House for a
written waiver in exceptional circumstances
with respect to clause 4 of rule XXIII.
(6)(A) The committee shall offer annual eth-
ics training to each Member, Delegate, Resi-
dent Commissioner, officer, and employee of
the House. Such training shall—
[573]
(i) involve the classes of employees for

whom the committee determines such train-
ing to be appropriate; and
(ii) include such knowledge of the Code of
Official Conduct and related House rules as
may be determined appropriate by the com-
mittee.
(B)(i) A new officer or employee of the House
shall receive training under this paragraph
not later than 60 days after beginning service
to the House.
(ii) Not later than January 31 of each year,
each officer and employee of the House shall
file a certification with the committee that the
officer or employee attended ethics training in
the last year as established by this subpara-
graph.
(b)(1)(A) Unless approved by an affirmative
vote of a majority of its members, the Committee
on Ethics may not report a resolution, report,
recommendation, or advisory opinion relating to
the official conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resi-
House, or, except as provided in subparagraph
(2), undertake an investigation of such conduct.
(B)(i) Upon the receipt of information offered
as a complaint that is in compliance with this
rule and the rules of the committee, the chair
and ranking minority member jointly may ap-
point members to serve as an investigative sub-
committee.
(ii) The chair and ranking minority member of
the committee jointly may gather additional in-
[574]
formation concerning alleged conduct that is the

basis of a complaint or of information offered as
a complaint until they have established an in-
vestigative subcommittee or either of them has
placed on the agenda of the committee the issue
of whether to establish an investigative sub-
committee.
(2) Except in the case of an investigation un-
dertaken by the committee on its own initiative,
the committee may undertake an investigation
relating to the official conduct of an individual
cer, or employee of the House only—
(A) upon receipt of information offered as a
complaint, in writing and under oath, from a
and transmitted to the committee by such
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner;
(B) upon receipt of information offered as a
complaint, in writing and under oath, from a
person not a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner provided that a Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner certifies in
writing to the committee that such Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner believes
the information is submitted in good faith and
warrants the review and consideration of the
committee; or
(C) upon receipt of a report regarding a re-
ferral from the board of the Office of Congres-
sional Ethics.
If a complaint is not disposed of within the ap-
plicable periods set forth in the rules of the
[575]
Committee on Ethics, the chair and ranking mi-

nority member shall establish jointly an inves-
tigative subcommittee and forward the com-
plaint, or any portion thereof, to that sub-
committee for its consideration. However, if at
any time during those periods either the chair or
ranking minority member places on the agenda
the issue of whether to establish an investiga-
tive subcommittee, then an investigative sub-
committee may be established only by an affirm-
ative vote of a majority of the members of the
committee.
(3) The committee may not undertake an in-
vestigation of an alleged violation of a law, rule,
regulation, or standard of conduct that was not
in effect at the time of the alleged violation. The
committee may not undertake an investigation
of such an alleged violation that occurred before
the third previous Congress unless the com-
mittee determines that the alleged violation is
directly related to an alleged violation that oc-
curred in a more recent Congress.
(4) A member of the committee shall be ineli-
gible to participate as a member of the com-
mittee in a committee proceeding relating to the
member’s official conduct. Whenever a member
of the committee is ineligible to act as a member
of the committee under the preceding sentence,
the Speaker shall designate a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner from the same polit-
ical party as the ineligible member to act in any
proceeding of the committee relating to that con-
duct.
[576]
(5) A member of the committee may seek dis-

qualification from participating in an investiga-
tion of the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resi-
House upon the submission in writing and under
oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating
that the member cannot render an impartial and
unbiased decision in the case in which the mem-
ber seeks to be disqualified. If the committee ap-
proves and accepts such affidavit of disqualifica-
tion, the chair shall so notify the Speaker and
request the Speaker to designate a Member, Del-
egate, or Resident Commissioner from the same
political party as the disqualifying member to
act in any proceeding of the committee relating
to that case.
(6) Information or testimony received, or the
contents of a complaint or the fact of its filing,
may not be publicly disclosed by any committee
or staff member unless specifically authorized in
each instance by a vote of the full committee.
(7) The committee shall have the functions
designated in titles I and V of the Ethics in Gov-
ernment Act of 1978, in sections 7342, 7351, and
7353 of title 5, United States Code, and in
clause 11(g)(4) of rule X.
(8)(A) Except as provided by subdivisions (B),
(C), and (D), not later than 45 calendar days or
5 legislative days, whichever is later, after re-
ceipt of a written report and any findings and
supporting documentation regarding a referral
from the board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics or of a referral of the matter from the
[577]
board pursuant to a request under paragraph

(r), the chair of the Committee on Ethics shall
make public the written report and findings of
the board unless the chair and ranking member,
acting jointly, decide or the committee votes to
withhold such information for not more than one
additional period of the same duration, in which
case the chair shall—
(i) upon the termination of such additional
period, make public the written report and
findings; and
(ii) upon the day of such decision or vote,
make a public statement that the committee
has voted to extend the matter relating to the
referral made by the board of the Office of
Congressional Ethics regarding the Member,
officer, or employee of the House who is the
subject of the applicable referral.
At least one calendar day before the committee
makes public any written report and findings of
the board, the chair shall notify such board and
the applicable Member, officer, or employee of
that fact and transmit to such individual a copy
of the statement on the committee’s disposition
of, and any committee report on, the matter.
(B)(i) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), if the
committee votes to dismiss a matter which is the
subject of a referral from the board of the Office
of Congressional Ethics, the committee is not re-
quired to make public the written report and
findings described in such subdivision unless the
committee’s vote is inconsistent with the rec-
ommendation of the board. For purposes of the
[578]
previous sentence, a vote by the committee to

dismiss a matter is not inconsistent with a re-
port from the board respecting the matter as un-
resolved due to a tie vote.
(ii) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(ii), if the
board transmits a report respecting any matter
with a recommendation to dismiss or as unre-
solved due to a tie vote, and the committee votes
to extend the matter for an additional period as
provided in subdivision (A), the committee is not
required to make a public statement that the
committee has voted to extend the matter.
(iii) Except as provided by subdivision (E), if
the committee establishes an investigative sub-
committee respecting any such matter, then the
report and findings of the board shall not be
made public until the conclusion of the inves-
tigative subcommittee process and the com-
mittee shall issue a public statement of the es-
tablishment of an investigative subcommittee,
which statement shall include the name of the
applicable Member, officer, or employee, and
shall set forth the alleged violation. If any such
investigative subcommittee does not conclude its
review within one year after the board transmits
a report respecting any matter, then the com-
mittee shall make public the report and upon
the expiration of the Congress in which the re-
port is made public, the committee shall make
public any findings.
(C)(i) If, after receipt of a written report and
any findings and supporting documentation re-
garding a referral from the board of the Office of
[579]
Congressional Ethics or of a referral of the mat-

ter from the board pursuant to a request under
paragraph (r), the committee agrees to a request
from an appropriate law enforcement or regu-
latory authority to defer taking action on the
matter—
(I) notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), the
committee is not required to make public the
written report and findings described in such
subdivision, except that if the recommendation
of the board with respect to the report is that
the matter requires further review, the com-
mittee shall make public the written report
but not the findings; and
(II) before the end of the first day (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays) after
the day that the committee agrees to the re-
quest, the committee shall make a public
statement that it is deferring taking action on
the matter at the request of such authority.
(ii) If, upon the expiration of the one-year pe-
riod that begins on the date the committee
makes the public statement described in item
(i)(II), the committee has not acted on the mat-
ter, the committee shall make a new public
statement that it is still deferring taking action
on the matter, and shall make a new statement
upon the expiration of each succeeding one-year
period during which the committee has not acted
on the matter.
(D) The committee may not receive any refer-
ral from the board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics within 60 days before a Federal, State, or
[580]
local election in which the subject of the referral

is a candidate. The committee may delay any re-
porting requirement under this subparagraph
that falls within that 60-day period until the end
of such period and in that case, for purposes of
subdivision (A), days within the 60-day period
shall not be counted.
(E) If, at the close of any applicable period for
a reporting requirement under this subpara-
graph with respect to a referral from the board
of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the vote of
the committee is a tie or the committee fails to
act, the report and the findings of the board
shall be made public by the committee, along
with a public statement by the chair explaining
the status of the matter.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule
XI, each meeting of the Committee on Ethics or
a subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive
session unless the committee or subcommittee,
by an affirmative vote of a majority of its mem-
bers, opens the meeting to the public.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI,
each hearing of an adjudicatory subcommittee or
sanction hearing of the Committee on Ethics
shall be held in open session unless the com-
mittee or subcommittee, in open session by an
affirmative vote of a majority of its members,
closes all or part of the remainder of the hearing
on that day to the public.
(d) Before a member, officer, or employee of
the Committee on Ethics, including members of
a subcommittee of the committee selected under
[581]
clause 5(a)(4) of rule X and shared staff, may

have access to information that is confidential
under the rules of the committee, the following
oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:
‘‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
not disclose, to any person or entity outside
the Committee on Ethics, any information re-
ceived in the course of my service with the
committee, except as authorized by the com-
mittee or in accordance with its rules.’’
Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by
the Clerk as part of the records of the House.
This paragraph establishes a standard of con-
duct within the meaning of paragraph (a)(2).
Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated
by the Committee on Ethics and appropriate ac-
tion shall be taken.
(e)(1) If a complaint or information offered as
a complaint is deemed frivolous by an affirma-
tive vote of a majority of the members of the
Committee on Ethics, the committee may take
such action as it, by an affirmative vote of a ma-
jority of its members, considers appropriate in
the circumstances.
(2) Complaints filed before the One Hundred
Fifth Congress may not be deemed frivolous by
the Committee on Ethics.
The investigative authority contained in this provision (formerly clause
4(e) of rule X) was first conferred upon the committee in the 90th Congress
(H. Res. 1099, Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8802). Effective January 3, 1975, the former
requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(A) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(A) of rule X)
that not less than seven committee members authorize an investigation
was changed to permit a majority of the committee to provide that author-
ization (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). That provision
was further amended in the 105th Congress to permit the chair and rank-
[582]
ing minority member, with respect to a properly filed complaint, to gather

additional information or to establish an investigative subcommittee (sec.
11, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318). Paragraph (b)(5) (formerly clause
4(e)(2)(E) of rule X) was added in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
1977, pp. 53–70) to provide a mechanism for a committee member to seek
disqualification from participating in an investigation, and paragraph
(b)(6) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(F) of rule X) was added in the 96th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8).
This provision was amended in several particulars by the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 (P.L. 101–194): (1) paragraph (a)(1) (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(A)
of rule X) was amended to enable a letter of reproval or other administra-
tive action of the committee to be implemented as part of a report to the
House, with no action required of the House; (2) paragraph (a)(2) (formerly
clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X) was amended to require the committee to report
to the House its findings of fact and any recommendations respecting the
final disposition of a matter in which it votes to undertake an investigation;
(3) a new paragraph (a)(4) (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(E) of rule X) was added
to empower the committee to consider requests that the rule restricting
the acceptance of gifts be waived in exceptional circumstances; and (4)
paragraph (b)(3) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(C) of rule X) was amended to set
a general limitation on actions for committee consideration of ethics mat-
ters.
In the beginning of the 105th Congress a subparagraph (3) was added
at the end of former clause 4(e) of rule X to establish a Select Committee
on Ethics only to resolve a specific inquiry originally undertaken by the
standing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 104th Con-
gress but not concluded (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The select com-
mittee filed one report to the House (H. Rept. 105–1, H. Res. 31, Jan.
21, 1997, p. 393). The current form of paragraph (c) (formerly clause 4(e)(3)
of rule X) was adopted later in the 105th Congress (sec. 5, H. Res. 168,
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318).
Additional amendments to this provision were adopted in the 105th Con-
gress as follows: (1) paragraphs (d) and (e) (formerly clauses 4(e)(4) and
4(e)(5)) were adopted (sec. 6 and sec. 19, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, pp.
19318, 19320); (2) paragraph (b)(2) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(B) of rule X)
was amended to address the disposition of a complaint after expiration
of periods set forth in the committee rules and to specify parameters for
the filing of complaints by non-Members (sec. 11, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18,
1997, p. 19318); and (3) paragraph (a)(3) (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(C) of rule
X) was amended to permit the committee to report to the appropriate au-
thorities substantial evidence of a violation of law by an affirmative vote
of two-thirds of the members of the committee without the approval of
the House (sec. 18, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19320). Paragraph (a)(5)
was amended in the 107th Congress to reflect the redesignation of a rule
(sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Paragraph (a)(6) was added in
the 110th Congress, effective March 1, 2007 (sec. 211, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
[583]
§ 806a Rule XI, clause 3
2007, p. 19). Paragraphs (b)(2)(C) and (b)(8) were added in the 110th Con-
gress (H. Res. 895, Mar. 11, 2008, p. l). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress, and paragraph (b)(5) was amended to
clarify the disqualification process (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
l). Amendments were effected in the 112th Congress to reflect a change
in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Before
found in former clause 4(e) of rule X and paragraph (b)(7) was found in
former clause 1(p) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses, the House directed the com-
mittee to empanel an investigative subcommittee upon a Member being
indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct, or to report
to the House if it decides not to so empanel a subcommittee (H. Res. 451,
June 5, 2007, p. l; sec. 4(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 4(d), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
In the 110th Congress, the House adopted a resolution establishing an
independent Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate individually-initi-
ated alleged ethics violations and to report its recommendations to the
Committee (Mar. 11, 2008, p. l). The 111th and 112th Congresses re-
established the office with a modification on its authority to engage consult-
ants (sec. 4(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 4(c), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l).
Committee agendas
(f) The committee shall adopt rules providing
§ 806a. Ethics; that the chair shall establish the
committee rules.
agenda for meetings of the com-
mittee, but shall not preclude the ranking mi-
nority member from placing any item on the
agenda.
Committee staff
(g)(1) The committee shall adopt rules pro-
viding that—
(A) the staff be assembled and retained as a
professional, nonpartisan staff;
(B) each member of the staff shall be profes-
sional and demonstrably qualified for the posi-
tion for which hired;
[584]
(C) the staff as a whole and each member of

the staff shall perform all official duties in a
nonpartisan manner;
(D) no member of the staff shall engage in
any partisan political activity directly affecting
any congressional or presidential election;
(E) no member of the staff or outside coun-
sel may accept public speaking engagements
or write for publication on any subject that is
in any way related to the employment or du-
ties with the committee of such individual
without specific prior approval from the chair
and ranking minority member; and
(F) no member of the staff or outside coun-
sel may make public, unless approved by an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members
of the committee, any information, document,
or other material that is confidential, derived
from executive session, or classified and that
is obtained during the course of employment
with the committee.
(2) Only subdivisions (C), (E), and (F) of sub-
paragraph (1) shall apply to shared staff.
(3)(A) All staff members shall be appointed by
an affirmative vote of a majority of the members
of the committee. Such vote shall occur at the
first meeting of the membership of the com-
mittee during each Congress and as necessary
during the Congress.
(B) Subject to the approval of the Committee
on House Administration, the committee may re-
tain counsel not employed by the House of Rep-
resentatives whenever the committee deter-
[585]
mines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of

the members of the committee, that the reten-
tion of outside counsel is necessary and appro-
priate.
(C) If the committee determines that it is nec-
essary to retain staff members for the purpose of
a particular investigation or other proceeding,
then such staff shall be retained only for the du-
ration of that particular investigation or pro-
ceeding.
(D) Outside counsel may be dismissed before
the end of a contract between the committee and
such counsel only by an affirmative vote of a
majority of the members of the committee.
(4) In addition to any other staff provided for
by law, rule, or other authority, with respect to
the committee, the chair and ranking minority
member each may appoint one individual as a
shared staff member from the respective per-
sonal staff of the chair or ranking minority
member to perform service for the committee.
Such shared staff may assist the chair or rank-
ing minority member on any subcommittee on
which the chair or ranking minority member
serves.
Meetings and hearings
(h)(1) The committee shall adopt rules pro-
viding that—
(A) all meetings or hearings of the com-
mittee or any subcommittee thereof, other
than any hearing held by an adjudicatory sub-
committee or any sanction hearing held by the
[586]
committee, shall occur in executive session un-

less the committee or subcommittee by an af-
firmative vote of a majority of its members
opens the meeting or hearing to the public;
and
(B) any hearing held by an adjudicatory sub-
committee or any sanction hearing held by the
committee shall be open to the public unless
the committee or subcommittee by an affirma-
tive vote of a majority of its members closes
the hearing to the public.
Public disclosure
(i) The committee shall adopt rules providing
that, unless otherwise determined by a vote of
the committee, only the chair or ranking minor-
ity member, after consultation with each other,
may make public statements regarding matters
before the committee or any subcommittee there-
of.
Requirements to constitute a complaint
(j) The committee shall adopt rules regarding
complaints to provide that whenever information
offered as a complaint is submitted to the com-
mittee, the chair and ranking minority member
shall have 14 calendar days or five legislative
days, whichever is sooner, to determine whether
the information meets the requirements of the
rules of the committee for what constitutes a
complaint.
[587]
Duties of chair and ranking minority mem-

ber regarding properly filed complaints
(k)(1) The committee shall adopt rules pro-
viding that whenever the chair and ranking mi-
nority member jointly determine that informa-
tion submitted to the committee meets the re-
quirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45
calendar days or five legislative days, whichever
is later, after that determination (unless the
committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of
its members votes otherwise) to—
(A) recommend to the committee that it dis-
pose of the complaint, or any portion thereof,
in any manner that does not require action by
the House, which may include dismissal of the
complaint or resolution of the complaint by a
letter to the Member, officer, or employee of
the House against whom the complaint is
made;
(B) establish an investigative subcommittee;
or
(C) request that the committee extend the
applicable 45-calendar day or five-legislative
day period by one additional 45-calendar day
period when they determine more time is nec-
essary in order to make a recommendation
under subdivision (A).
(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing
that if the chair and ranking minority member
jointly determine that information submitted to
the committee meets the requirements of the
rules of the committee for what constitutes a
[588]
complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of

within the applicable time periods under sub-
paragraph (1), then they shall establish an in-
vestigative subcommittee and forward the com-
plaint, or any portion thereof, to that sub-
committee for its consideration. However, if, at
any time during those periods, either the chair
or ranking minority member places on the agen-
da the issue of whether to establish an inves-
tigative subcommittee, then an investigative
subcommittee may be established only by an af-
firmative vote of a majority of the members of
the committee.
Duties of chair and ranking minority mem-
ber regarding information not consti-
tuting a complaint
(l) The committee shall adopt rules providing
that whenever the chair and ranking minority
member jointly determine that information sub-
mitted to the committee does not meet the re-
quirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint, they may—
(1) return the information to the complain-
ant with a statement that it fails to meet the
requirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint; or
(2) recommend to the committee that it au-
thorize the establishment of an investigative
subcommittee.
[589]
Investigative and adjudicatory subcommit-

tees
(m) The committee shall adopt rules providing
that—
(1)(A) an investigative subcommittee shall
be composed of four Members (with equal rep-
resentation from the majority and minority
parties) whenever such a subcommittee is es-
tablished pursuant to the rules of the com-
mittee;
(B) an adjudicatory subcommittee shall be
composed of the members of the committee
who did not serve on the pertinent investiga-
tive subcommittee (with equal representation
from the majority and minority parties) when-
ever such a subcommittee is established pur-
suant to the rules of the committee; and
(C) notwithstanding any other provision of
this clause, the chair and ranking minority
member of the committee may consult with an
investigative subcommittee either on their
own initiative or on the initiative of the sub-
committee, shall have access to information
before a subcommittee with which they so con-
sult, and shall not thereby be precluded from
serving as full, voting members of any adju-
dicatory subcommittee;
(2) at the time of appointment, the chair
shall designate one member of a subcommittee
to serve as chair and the ranking minority
member shall designate one member of the
subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority
member; and
[590]
(3) the chair and ranking minority member

of the committee may serve as members of an
investigative subcommittee, but may not serve
as non-voting, ex officio members.
Standard of proof for adoption of statement
of alleged violation
(n) The committee shall adopt rules to provide
that an investigative subcommittee may adopt a
statement of alleged violation only if it deter-
mines by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the subcommittee that there is sub-
stantial reason to believe that a violation of the
Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regu-
lation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
the performance of official duties or the dis-
charge of official responsibilities by a Member,
officer, or employee of the House of Representa-
tives, has occurred.
Subcommittee powers
(o)(1) The committee shall adopt rules pro-
viding that an investigative subcommittee or an
adjudicatory subcommittee may authorize and
issue subpoenas only when authorized by an af-
firmative vote of a majority of the members of
the subcommittee.
(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing
that an investigative subcommittee may, upon
an affirmative vote of a majority of its members,
expand the scope of its investigation when ap-
proved by an affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the committee.
[591]
(3) The committee shall adopt rules to provide

that—
(A) an investigative subcommittee may,
upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members, amend its statement of alleged vio-
lation anytime before the statement of alleged
violation is transmitted to the committee; and
(B) if an investigative subcommittee amends
its statement of alleged violation, the respond-
ent shall be notified in writing and shall have
30 calendar days from the date of that notifi-
cation to file an answer to the amended state-
ment of alleged violation.
Due process rights of respondents
(p) The committee shall adopt rules to provide
that—
(1) not less than 10 calendar days before a
scheduled vote by an investigative sub-
committee on a statement of alleged violation,
the subcommittee shall provide the respondent
with a copy of the statement of alleged viola-
tion it intends to adopt together with all evi-
dence it intends to use to prove those charges
which it intends to adopt, including documen-
tary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda
of witness interviews, and physical evidence,
unless the subcommittee by an affirmative
vote of a majority of its members decides to
withhold certain evidence in order to protect a
witness; but if such evidence is withheld, the
subcommittee shall inform the respondent
[592]
that evidence is being withheld and of the

count to which such evidence relates;
(2) neither the respondent nor the counsel of
the respondent shall, directly or indirectly,
contact the subcommittee or any member
thereof during the period of time set forth in
paragraph (1) except for the sole purpose of
settlement discussions where counsel for the
respondent and the subcommittee are present;
(3) if, at any time after the issuance of a
statement of alleged violation, the committee
or any subcommittee thereof determines that
it intends to use evidence not provided to a re-
spondent under paragraph (1) to prove the
charges contained in the statement of alleged
violation (or any amendment thereof), such
evidence shall be made immediately available
to the respondent, and it may be used in any
further proceeding under the rules of the com-
mittee;
(4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph
(1) or (3) shall be made available to the re-
spondent and the counsel of the respondent
only after each agrees, in writing, that no doc-
ument, information, or other materials ob-
tained pursuant to that paragraph shall be
made public until—
(A) such time as a statement of alleged
violation is made public by the committee if
the respondent has waived the adjudicatory
hearing; or
[593]
(B) the commencement of an adjudicatory

hearing if the respondent has not waived an
adjudicatory hearing;
but the failure of respondent and the counsel
of the respondent to so agree in writing, and
their consequent failure to receive the evi-
dence, shall not preclude the issuance of a
statement of alleged violation at the end of the
period referred to in paragraph (1);
(5) a respondent shall receive written notice
whenever—
(A) the chair and ranking minority mem-
ber determine that information the com-
mittee has received constitutes a complaint;
(B) a complaint or allegation is trans-
mitted to an investigative subcommittee;
(C) an investigative subcommittee votes to
authorize its first subpoena or to take testi-
mony under oath, whichever occurs first; or
(D) an investigative subcommittee votes to
expand the scope of its investigation;
(6) whenever an investigative subcommittee
adopts a statement of alleged violation and a
respondent enters into an agreement with that
subcommittee to settle a complaint on which
that statement is based, that agreement, un-
less the respondent requests otherwise, shall
be in writing and signed by the respondent
and respondent’s counsel, the chair and rank-
ing minority member of the subcommittee,
and the outside counsel, if any;
(7) statements or information derived solely
from a respondent or the counsel of a respond-
[594]
ent during any settlement discussions between

the committee or a subcommittee thereof and
the respondent shall not be included in any re-
port of the subcommittee or the committee or
otherwise publicly disclosed without the con-
sent of the respondent; and
(8) whenever a motion to establish an inves-
tigative subcommittee does not prevail, the
committee shall promptly send a letter to the
respondent informing the respondent of such
vote.
Committee reporting requirements
(q) The committee shall adopt rules to provide
that—
does not adopt a statement of alleged violation
and transmits a report to that effect to the
committee, the committee may by an affirma-
tive vote of a majority of its members transmit
such report to the House of Representatives;
adopts a statement of alleged violation, the re-
spondent admits to the violations set forth in
such statement, the respondent waives the
right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the re-
spondent’s waiver is approved by the com-
mittee—
(A) the subcommittee shall prepare a re-
port for transmittal to the committee, a final
draft of which shall be provided to the re-
spondent not less than 15 calendar days be-
[595]
fore the subcommittee votes on whether to

adopt the report;
(B) the respondent may submit views in
writing regarding the final draft to the sub-
committee within seven calendar days of re-
ceipt of that draft;
(C) the subcommittee shall transmit a re-
port to the committee regarding the state-
ment of alleged violation together with any
views submitted by the respondent pursuant
to subdivision (B), and the committee shall
make the report together with the respond-
ent’s views available to the public before the
commencement of any sanction hearing; and
(D) the committee shall by an affirmative
vote of a majority of its members issue a re-
port and transmit such report to the House
of Representatives, together with the re-
spondent’s views previously submitted pur-
suant to subdivision (B) and any additional
views respondent may submit for attach-
ment to the final report; and
(3) members of the committee shall have not
less than 72 hours to review any report trans-
mitted to the committee by an investigative
subcommittee before both the commencement
of a sanction hearing and the committee vote
on whether to adopt the report.
(r) Upon receipt of any written notification
from the board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics that the board is undertaking a review of
any alleged conduct of any Member, officer, or
employee of the House and if the committee is
[596]
investigating such matter, the committee may at

any time so notify the board and request that
the board cease its review and refer the matter
to the committee for its consideration. If at the
end of the applicable time period (including any
permissible extension) the committee has not
reached a final resolution of the matter or has
not referred the matter to the appropriate Fed-
eral or State authorities, the committee shall so
notify the board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics in writing. The committee may not re-
quest the same matter from the board more
than one time.
In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force was informally
appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders to conduct a comprehen-
sive review of the House ethics process. At the same time an order of
the House was adopted imposing a moratorium on filing or processing eth-
ics complaints and on raising certain questions of privilege under rule IX
with respect to official conduct. The moratorium was imposed with the
expectation that the recommendations of the task force would include
changes relating to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) and the process by which the House enforces standards of official
conduct (Feb. 12, 1997, p. 2058). The moratorium was extended through
September 10, 1997 (July 30, 1997, p. 16958). On September 18, 1997,
the House adopted the recommendations of the task force with certain
amendments (H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., p. 19340), which included not only
changes to the standing Rules of the House but also free-standing directives
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which were reaffirmed
for the 106th Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47) and again
for the 107th Congress with an exception to section 13 (sec. 3(a), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). In the 108th Congress the pertinent free-standing
provisions were codified (including the exception to section 13 added in
the 107th Congress) as new paragraphs (f) through (q) of clause 3 (sec.
2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). On the opening day of the 109th Con-
gress, various changes were made to paragraphs (b), (k), (p), and (q) (sec.
2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Later in the 109th Congress, those
changes were redacted and the affected provisions as they existed at the
close of the 108th Congress were reinstated (H. Res. 240, Apr. 27, 2005,
p. 8045). Paragraph (r) was added in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 895,
Mar. 11, 2008, p. l). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). A technical amendment
[597]
to paragraph (o)(2) was effected in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Section 803 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C. 29d) contains
several free-standing provisions, which are carried in this annotation. The
requirement that the respective party caucuses nominate seven majority
and seven minority members should be read in light of clause 5 of rule
X, setting the composition of the committee at 10, five from the majority
and five from the minority. The requirement that the committee adopt
rules establishing investigative and adjudicative subcommittees should be
read in light of clause 3(m), which constitutes the same requirement. The
references to clause 5(d) of rule XI applied to a former rule regarding minor-
ity staffing requirements, which was eliminated in the 104th Congress
(sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462).
‘‘SEC. 803. REFORMS RESPECTING THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

OFFICIAL CONDUCT.—
* * *
‘‘(b) COMMITTEE COMPOSITION.—The respective party caucus or con-
ference of the House of Representatives shall each nominate to the House
of Representatives at the beginning of each Congress 7 members to serve
on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
‘‘(c) INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEES.—The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing—
‘‘(1) for the establishment of a 4 or 6-member investigative sub-
committee (with equal representation from the majority and minor-
ity parties) whenever the committee votes to undertake any inves-
tigation;
‘‘(2) that the senior majority and minority members on an inves-
tigative subcommittee shall serve as the chairman and ranking mi-
nority member of the subcommittee; and
‘‘(3) that the chairman and ranking minority member of the full
committee may only serve as non-voting, ex officio members on an
investigative subcommittee.
‘‘Clause 5(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall
not apply to any investigative subcommittee.
‘‘(d) ADJUDICATORY SUBCOMMITTEES.—The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing—
‘‘(1) that upon the completion of an investigation, an investigative
subcommittee shall report its findings and recommendations to the
committee;
‘‘(2) that, if an investigative subcommittee by majority vote of its
membership adopts a statement of alleged violation, the remaining
members of the committee shall comprise an adjudicatory sub-
[598]
committee to hold a disciplinary hearing on the violation alleged in

the statement;
‘‘(3) that any statement of alleged violation and any written re-
sponse thereto shall be made public at the first meeting or hearing
on the matter which is open to the public after the respondent has
been given full opportunity to respond to the statement in accord-
ance with committee rules, but, if no public hearing or meeting is
held on the matter, the statement of alleged violation and any writ-
ten response thereto shall be included in the committee’s final report
to the House of Representatives as required by clause 4(e)(1)(B) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives;
‘‘(4) that a quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee for the pur-
pose of taking testimony and conducting any business shall consist
of a majority of the membership of the subcommittee plus one; and
‘‘(5) that an adjudicatory subcommittee shall determine, after re-
ceiving evidence, whether the counts in the statement have been
proved and shall report its findings to the committee.
‘‘Clause 5(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall
not apply to any adjudicatory subcommittee.
* * *
‘‘(i) ADVICE AND EDUCATION.—(1) The Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall establish within the Committee an Office on Advice and
Education (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the ‘Office’) under
the supervision of the chairman.
‘‘(2) The Office shall be headed by a director who shall be ap-
pointed by the chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority
member, and shall be comprised of such staff as the chairman deter-
mines is necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Office.
‘‘(3) The primary responsibilities of the Office shall include:
‘‘(A) Providing information and guidance to Members, officers
and employees of the House regarding any laws, rules, regula-
tions, and other standards of conduct applicable to such individ-
uals in their official capacities, and any interpretations and ad-
visory opinions of the committee.
‘‘(B) Submitting to the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the committee any written request from any such Mem-
ber, officer or employee for an interpretation of applicable laws,
rules, regulations, or other standards of conduct, together with
any recommendations thereon.
‘‘(C) Recommending to the committee for its consideration for-
mal advisory opinions of general applicability.
‘‘(D) Developing and carrying out, subject to the approval of
the chairman, periodic educational briefings for Members, offi-
cers and employees of the House on those laws, rules, regula-
tions, or other standards of conduct applicable to them.
[599]
‘‘(4) No information provided to the Committee on Standards of Of-

ficial Conduct by a Member, officer or employee of the House of Rep-
resentatives when seeking advice regarding prospective conduct of
such Member, officer or employee may be used as the basis for initi-
ating an investigation under clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer or employee
acts in accordance with the written advice of the committee.’’.
On occasions in which the House has directed the committee to conduct

specific investigations by separate resolution, it has authorized the com-
mittee to take depositions with one member present, notwithstanding
clause 2(h) of rule XI, to serve subpoenas, to participate by special counsel
in relevant judicial proceedings (see H. Res. 252, 95th Cong., Feb. 9, 1977,
pp. 3966–75; H. Res. 608, Mar. 27, 1980, pp. 6995–98; H. Res. 254, June
30, 1983, p. 18279), and to investigate persons other than Members, officers
and employees with expanded subpoena authority (see H. Res. 1054, 94th
Cong., Mar. 3, 1976, pp. 5165–68). By unanimous consent the committee
was authorized to receive evidence and take testimony before a quorum
of one of its members for the remainder of the second session of the 100th
Congress (Oct. 13, 1988, p. 30467). By resolutions considered as questions
of the privileges of the House, the committee has been directed to inves-
tigate illegal solicitation of political contributions in the House Office Build-
ing by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985, p. 18397); to review GAO
audits of the operations of the ‘‘bank’’ in the Office of the Sergeant-at-
Arms (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435), to disclose the names and pertinent account
information of Members and former Members found to have abused the
privileges of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519), and to disclose further
account information respecting Members and former Members having
checks held by that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5534); and to investigate
violations of confidentiality by staff engaged in the investigation of the
operation and management of the Office of the Postmaster (July 22, 1992,
p. 18786). In compliance with one such direction of the House, the acting
chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) in-
serted in the Record names and pertinent account information of Members
and former Members found to have abused the privileges of the ‘‘bank’’
in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (H. Res. 393, Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7888).
In the 106th Congress the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct inserted in the Record an explanation of the committee’s amend-
ment to committee rule 20(f) to reflect that the full committee retains dis-
cretion whether to report to the House that an investigative subcommittee
has not adopted a statement of alleged violation (Apr. 13, 2000, p. 5631).
In the 106th Congress the committee filed a report issuing a letter of
reproval regarding the conduct of a Member (Oct. 16, 2000, p. 22834).
Under clause 3(b)(4) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(D) of rule X), a member
of the Committee on Ethics is ineligible to participate in a committee pro-
[600]
ceeding relating to that member’s official conduct. Upon notification to

the Speaker of such ineligibility, the Speaker designates another Member
of the same political party as the ineligible member to serve on the com-
mittee during proceedings relating to that conduct (Speaker O’Neill, Feb.
5, 1980, p. 1908; July 23, 1996, p. 18596). Under clause 3(b)(5) (formerly
clause 4(e)(2)(E) of rule X), a member of the committee may be recused
from serving on the committee during proceedings relating to a pending
investigation by submitting an affidavit of disqualification to the committee
stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision
relating to that investigation. If the committee accepts the affidavit, the
chair notifies the Speaker and requests the Speaker to designate another
Member from the same political party as the disqualified member to serve
on the committee during proceedings relating to that investigation (Speak-
er O’Neill, Mar. 18, 1980).
The committee has compiled statutory and rule-based ethical standards
in the House Ethics Manual (110th Cong., 2d Sess.). In the Manual, the
committee incorporates its advisory opinions issued under clause 3(a)(4)
(formerly clause 4(e)(1)(D) of rule X), together with advisory opinions issued
by the former Select Committee on Ethics, in its discussions of various
ethical issues, including gifts, outside income, financial disclosure, staff
rights and duties, official allowances and franking, casework consider-
ations, campaign financing and practices, and involvement with official
and unofficial organizations.
Audio and visual coverage of committee pro-

ceedings
4. (a) The purpose of this clause is to provide
§ 807. Coverage of a means, in conformity with accept-
committee
proceedings. able standards of dignity, propriety,
and decorum, by which committee
hearings or committee meetings that are open to
the public may be covered by audio and visual
means—
(1) for the education, enlightenment, and in-
formation of the general public, on the basis of
accurate and impartial news coverage, regard-
ing the operations, procedures, and practices
of the House as a legislative and representa-
tive body, and regarding the measures, public
issues, and other matters before the House
[601]
and its committees, the consideration thereof,

and the action taken thereon; and
(2) for the development of the perspective
and understanding of the general public with
respect to the role and function of the House
under the Constitution as an institution of the
Federal Government.
(b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause
that radio and television tapes and television
film of any coverage under this clause may not
be used, or made available for use, as partisan
political campaign material to promote or oppose
the candidacy of any person for elective public
office.
(c) It is, further, the intent of this clause that
§ 808. Media coverage. the general conduct of each meeting
(whether of a hearing or otherwise)

covered under authority of this clause by audio
or visual means, and the personal behavior of
the committee members and staff, other Govern-
ment officials and personnel, witnesses, tele-
vision, radio, and press media personnel, and
the general public at the hearing or other meet-
ing, shall be in strict conformity with and ob-
servance of the acceptable standards of dignity,
propriety, courtesy, and decorum traditionally
observed by the House in its operations, and
may not be such as to—
(1) distort the objects and purposes of the
hearing or other meeting or the activities of
committee members in connection with that
hearing or meeting or in connection with the
[602]
general work of the committee or of the

House; or
(2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House,
the committee, or a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner or bring the House,
the committee, or a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner into disrepute.
(d) The coverage of committee hearings and
meetings by audio and visual means shall be
permitted and conducted only in strict con-
formity with the purposes, provisions, and re-
quirements of this clause.
(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted
§ 809. When permitted. by a committee or subcommittee is
open to the public, those pro-

ceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and
visual means. A committee or subcommittee
chair may not limit the number of television or
still cameras to fewer than two representatives
from each medium (except for legitimate space
or safety considerations, in which case pool cov-
erage shall be authorized).
(f) Each committee shall adopt written rules to
§ 810. Committee rules. govern its implementation of this
clause. Such rules shall contain pro-

visions to the following effect:
(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing
or meeting is to be presented to the public as
live coverage, that coverage shall be conducted
and presented without commercial sponsor-
ship.
(2) The allocation among the television
media of the positions or the number of tele-
[603]
vision cameras permitted by a committee or

subcommittee chair in a hearing or meeting
room shall be in accordance with fair and eq-
uitable procedures devised by the Executive
Committee of the Radio and Television Cor-
respondents’ Galleries.
(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as
not to obstruct in any way the space between
a witness giving evidence or testimony and
any member of the committee or the visibility
of that witness and that member to each
other.
(4) Television cameras shall operate from
fixed positions but may not be placed in posi-
tions that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage
of the hearing or meeting by the other media.
(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the
television and radio media may not be in-
stalled in, or removed from, the hearing or
meeting room while the committee is in ses-
sion.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B),
floodlights, spotlights, strobelights, and flash-
guns may not be used in providing any meth-
od of coverage of the hearing or meeting.
(B) The television media may install addi-
tional lighting in a hearing or meeting room,
without cost to the Government, in order to
raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing
or meeting room to the lowest level necessary
to provide adequate television coverage of a
hearing or meeting at the current state of the
art of television coverage.
[604]
(7) If requests are made by more of the

media than will be permitted by a committee
or subcommittee chair for coverage of a hear-
ing or meeting by still photography, that cov-
erage shall be permitted on the basis of a fair
and equitable pool arrangement devised by the
Standing Committee of Press Photographers.
(8) Photographers may not position them-
§ 811. Press selves between the witness table
photographers.
and the members of the com-
mittee at any time during the course of a
hearing or meeting.
(9) Photographers may not place themselves
in positions that obstruct unnecessarily the
coverage of the hearing by the other media.
(10) Personnel providing coverage by the tel-
evision and radio media shall be currently ac-
credited to the Radio and Television Cor-
respondents’ Galleries.
(11) Personnel providing coverage by still
§ 812. Accreditation. photography shall be currently
accredited to the Press Photog-
raphers’ Gallery.
(12) Personnel providing coverage by the tel-
evision and radio media and by still photog-
raphy shall conduct themselves and their cov-
erage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive
manner.
The rule permitting broadcasting of committee hearings was contained
in section 116(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and became part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144). In the 93d Congress, the rule was amended to permit
committees to adopt rules allowing coverage of committee meetings as well
as hearings(H. Res. 1107, July 22, 1974, p. 24447). Paragraphs (e), (f)(3),
(f)(5), and (f)(8) of this clause were amended in the 99th Congress to remove
[605]
the limit on the number of television cameras (previously four) and press
photographers (previously five) covering committee proceedings, and to
provide the committee or subcommittee chair with the discretion to deter-
mine the appropriate number (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). Paragraph
(f)(7) was amended in the 112th Congress to remove obsolete references
to news organizations (sec. 2(e)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). At the
beginning of the 104th Congress paragraph (d) was amended to delete
the former characterization of broadcast and photographic coverage of com-
mittee meetings and hearings as ‘‘a privilege made available by the House,’’
and paragraph (e) was amended to eliminate the requirement that a com-
mittee vote to permit broadcast and photographic coverage of open hearings
and meetings and to prohibit chairs from limiting coverage to less than
two representatives from each medium, except if space or safety consider-
ations warrant pool coverage (sec. 105, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
Later in the 104th Congress this clause was again amended to make con-
forming changes in its heading and in paragraph (f) (H. Res. 254, Nov.
30, 1995, p. 35077). Former clause 4(f)(2), permitting a witness to terminate
audio and visual (including photographic) coverage, was eliminated in the
105th Congress (H. Res. 301, Nov. 12, 1997, p. 26041). Gender-based ref-
erences were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Pay of witnesses
5. Witnesses appearing before the House or
§ 813. Fees of any of its committees shall be paid
witnesses before the
House or committees. the same per diem rate as estab-
lished, authorized, and regulated by
the Committee on House Administration for
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commis-
sioner, and employees of the House, plus actual
expenses of travel to or from the place of exam-
ination. Such per diem may not be paid when a
witness has been summoned at the place of ex-
amination.
This clause (formerly rule XXXV) was adopted in 1872, with amendments
in 1880 (III, 1825), 1930 (VI, 393), April 19, 1955 (p. 4722), August 12,
1969 (H. Res. 495, 91st Cong., p. 23355), and July 28, 1975 (H. Res. 517,
94th Cong. p. 25258). The last amendment eliminated the specific per diem
and travel rate of reimbursement and allowed actual travel costs and per
[606]
diem for witnesses requested or subpoenaed to appear at the same rate

as established by the Committee on House Administration for Members
and employees. In the 104th and 106th Congresses it was amended to
conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule
XXXV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For further provisions relating to
witnesses, see clauses 2(j) and (k) of rule XI (§§ 802–803, supra).
Regulations of the Committee on House Administration do not permit
per diem reimbursement for witnesses. Regulations for reimbursement of
actual travel costs may be found in the Committees’ Congressional Hand-
book, Committee on House Administration, under the section entitled
‘‘Hearings and Meetings.’’
Unfinished business of the session

6. All business of the House at the end of one
§ 814. Resumption of session shall be resumed at the
business of a
preceding session. commencement of the next session
of the same Congress in the same
manner as if no adjournment had taken place.
At first the Congress attempted to follow the rule of the English Par-
liament that business unfinished in one session should begin anew at the
next; but in 1818, after an investigation of a joint committee in 1816, a
rule was adopted that House bills remaining undetermined in the House
should be continued at the next session after six days. This rule did not
reach House bills sent to the Senate; but in 1848 the two Houses remedied
this omission by a joint rule. Business referred to committees of the House
was still subject to the old rule of Parliament; but in 1860 the present
rule was adopted as a supplement to the rule of 1818. In 1890, desiring
to do away with the limitation of the six days and apparently overlooking
the main purpose of the rule of 1818, the House rescinded that limitation.
Also, in 1876 the joint rules were abrogated, leaving no provision, except
the headline of the rule, for the continuance of business not before commit-
tees. The practice, however, had become so well established that no ques-
tion has ever been raised (V, 6727). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XXVI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The business of conferences between the two Houses is not interrupted
by an adjournment of a session that does not terminate the Congress (V,
6260–6262), and if one House asks a conference at one session the other
may agree to it in the next session (V, 6286). Where bills were enrolled
and signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses at the close of one
session they were sent to the President and approved at the beginning
of the next session (IV, 3486–3488).
[607]
§ 815–§ 816 Rule XII, clause 2
RULE XII
RECEIPT AND REFERRAL OF MEASURES AND
MATTERS
Messages
1. Messages received from the Senate, or from
§ 815. Entry of the President, shall be entered on
messages in the
Journal and Record. the Journal and published in the
Congressional Record of the pro-
ceedings of that day.
This provision was adopted in 1867 and amended in 1880 (V, 6593).
It was renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified
XXXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The House may receive a message from the Senate when the Senate
is not in session (VIII, 3338).
Referral
2. (a) The Speaker shall refer each bill, resolu-
§ 816. Referral tion, or other matter that relates to
procedures.
a subject listed under a standing
committee named in clause 1 of rule X in accord-
ance with the provisions of this clause.
(b) The Speaker shall refer matters under
paragraph (a) in such manner as to ensure to
the maximum extent feasible that each com-
mittee that has jurisdiction under clause 1 of
rule X over the subject matter of a provision
thereof may consider such provision and report
to the House thereon. Precedents, rulings, or
procedures in effect before the Ninety-Fourth
Congress shall be applied to referrals under this
clause only to the extent that they will con-
tribute to the achievement of the objectives of
this clause.
[608]
Rule XII, clause 2 § 816
(c) In carrying out paragraphs (a) and (b) with

respect to the referral of a matter, the Speak-
er—
(1) shall designate a committee of primary
jurisdiction (except where the Speaker deter-
mines that extraordinary circumstances justify
review by more than one committee as though
primary);
(2) may refer the matter to one or more ad-
ditional committees for consideration in se-
quence, either initially or after the matter has
been reported by the committee of primary ju-
risdiction;
(3) may refer portions of the matter reflect-
ing different subjects and jurisdictions to one
or more additional committees;
(4) may refer the matter to a special, ad hoc
committee appointed by the Speaker with the
approval of the House, and including members
of the committees of jurisdiction, for the spe-
cific purpose of considering that matter and
reporting to the House thereon;
(5) may subject a referral to appropriate
time limitations; and
(6) may make such other provision as may
be considered appropriate.
This provision became effective as part of the rules on January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Before that time a bill
or resolution could not be divided for reference among two or more commit-
tees, although it contained matter properly within the jurisdiction of sev-
eral committees (IV, 4361). Paragraph (c) was amended on January 4, 1977
(H. Res. 5, pp. 53–70) to authorize the Speaker to place an appropriate
time limit for consideration by the first committee or committees to which
referred. In the 104th Congress paragraph (c) was again amended to re-
quire the Speaker to initially designate a committee of primary jurisdiction
[609]
§ 816 Rule XII, clause 2
in each referral of a measure to more than one committee (sec. 205, H.

Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). In the 108th Congress the parenthetical excep-
tion in paragraph (c)(1) was added (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p.
7). A paragraph (e) was added to the clause on January 4, 1977 (H. Res.
5, pp. 53–70) to abolish the legislative jurisdiction in the House of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The legislative jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee was divided among the Committees on Armed Services (mili-
tary applications of nuclear energy), Interior and Insular Affairs (now Nat-
ural Resources) (regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, since
transferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the 104th Con-
gress), Foreign Affairs (nonproliferation of nuclear energy and inter-
national nuclear export agreements), Interstate and Foreign Commerce
(now Energy and Commerce) (the same jurisdiction over nuclear energy
as exercised over other energy), and Science, Space, and Technology (non-
defense nuclear research and development). In addition, the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (now Energy and Commerce) was
given oversight jurisdiction over all laws, programs, and government activi-
ties affecting nuclear energy. Paragraph (e) was deleted entirely in the
97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98). At the same time the House
deleted former paragraph (d), which required the Congressional Research
Service of the Library of Congress to prepare factual descriptions of each
bill or resolution introduced in the House to be published in the Congres-
sional Record. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Con-
gress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodified
5 of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
An order of the House precluding or limiting the potential for organiza-
tional or legislative business on certain days was considered not to deprive
Members of the privilege of introducing bills and resolutions during pro
forma sessions on those days, such measures being numbered on the day
introduced but not noted in the Record or referred to committee until the
day on which business was resumed (H. Con. Res. 260, Nov. 26, 1991,
p. 35840, extended by unanimous consent on Jan. 22, 1992, p. 149, and
Jan. 28, 1992, p. 745; H. Res. 619, Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29054, amended by
H. Res. 640, Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30378; H. Res. 877, Dec. 18, 2007, p. l).
Under clause 2(c), the Speaker may (1) refer a bill to more than one
committee for their respective consideration of such provisions of the bill
as fall within their jurisdiction (Speaker Albert, Feb. 25, 1976, p. 4315),
(2) divide a matter for initial reference to committees (Speaker Albert,
Feb. 4, 1975, p. 2253; Speaker Hastert, Apr. 26, 1999, p. 7354), or (3)
refer designated portions of a bill to one committee while referring the
entire bill to another committee (Speaker O’Neill, Mar. 3, 1982, p. 3155).
The Speaker also may set appropriate time limitations on the initial ref-
erence to each committee (Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 16, 1977, p. 4532; Speaker
O’Neill, May 2, 1977, p. 13184). For example, the Speaker may refer a
bill to two committees, with a time limit on one of the committees ending
[610]
Rule XII, clause 2 § 816a
within a certain period after the other committee reports to the House
(Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 27, 1983, p. 937; Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 2, 1983, p.
1492; Speaker Wright, Apr. 9, 1987, p. 8665) or with a time limit on one
committee ending with a date certain (Speaker O’Neill, July 31, 1985, p.
21936; Speaker Hastert, Mar. 13, 2001, p. 3448; Speaker Hastert, July
26, 2002, p. 15146). The Speaker may discharge a committee from further
consideration of a bill not reported by it within the time for which the
bill was referred and place the bill on the appropriate calendar (Speaker
O’Neill, May 8, 1978, p. 12924).
Before paragraph (c) was amended in the 104th Congress to require the
Speaker to designate a committee of primary jurisdiction, the Speaker an-
nounced at the convening of the 98th Congress that he would exercise
his authority, in situations that warranted it, to designate a primary com-
mittee among those to which a bill was jointly referred, and to impose
time limits on committees having a secondary interest following the report
of the primary committee under a joint referral (Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 3,
1983, p. 54; reiterated by Speaker Foley, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105). The Speaker
may refer a bill primarily to one committee while also referring it initially
to additional committees for time periods to be subsequently determined
when the primary committee reports, in each case for consideration of mat-
ters within their respective jurisdictions (Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 123).
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIV (formerly clause 2 of rule XXIV), relating
to messages from the Senate, the Speaker has discretionary authority to
refer from the Speaker’s table to standing committees, Senate amendments
to House-passed bills, under any conditions permitted under this provision
for introduced bills. The Speaker may for example impose a time limitation
for consideration only of a portion of the Senate amendment, not germane
to the original House bill, by the standing committee with subject-matter
jurisdiction, without referring the remainder of the Senate amendment
to the House committee with jurisdiction over the original House bill
(Speaker O’Neill, H.R. 31, Mar. 26, 1981, p. 5397). Beginning with the
98th Congress, the Speaker announced a policy of referring nongermane
Senate amendments under certain conditions (Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 3,
1983, p. 54; Speaker Foley, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105).
Under clause 2(c), the Speaker has authority to sequentially refer a bill
§ 816a. Sequential
reported from a committee to other committees for a
referral procedures. time certain for consideration of such portions of the
bill as fall within their respective jurisdictions (Speaker
Albert, Apr. 9, 1976, p. 10265; Speaker Albert, May 17, 1976, p. 14093).
Under that authority, the Speaker may limit a sequential referral to mat-
ters having a direct effect on subjects within the committee’s jurisdiction
(Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 5, 1982, p. 6580; Speaker O’Neill, June 7, 1983,
p. 14699; Speaker Wright, Sept. 9, 1987, p. 23648). For example, the Speak-
er sequentially referred a bill reported by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce to the Committee on the Judiciary for a specified time for consid-
[611]
§ 816a Rule XII, clause 2
eration of ‘‘such provisions of the bill and amendment recommended by

the Committee on Energy and Commerce as propose to narrow the purview
of the Attorney General under section 271 of the Communications Act of
1934’’ (Speaker Hastert, May 24, 2001, p. 9384). The Speaker exercised
authority under this clause to sequentially refer a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations, reported as privileged by the Committee on Ap-
propriations, to the committee having legislative jurisdiction over a legisla-
tive provision in the resolution, without a time limitation on the sequential
referral (Speaker O’Neill, Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25523).
The Speaker has sometimes announced the application of the authority
on sequential referrals at the outset of a Congress. For example, in the
97th Congress, the Speaker announced that the sequential referral of a
measure would be based on the subject matter of any amendment rec-
ommended by the reporting committee, as well as upon the original text
of the measure (Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 115, 116). In the 100th
Congress, the Speaker announced that, in certain cases, a sequential refer-
ral would be based only upon the text of a reported substitute amendment
in lieu of original text (Speaker Wright, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 22). The Speaker
has sequentially referred (1) a bill for consideration of the bill and amend-
ment of the previous committee (Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 13, 1977, p. 33716);
(2) a bill to two committees for different periods of time, solely for consider-
ation of designated sections of the first committee’s recommended amend-
ment (Speaker O’Neill, May 18, 1982, p. 10418; Speaker O’Neill, Aug. 1,
1985, p. 22681); (3) a bill for consideration by a third committee of a portion
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by one of
the committees to which the bill had been initially referred (Speaker
O’Neill, May 22, 1985, p. 13126); (4) a bill back to the first-reporting com-
mittee when it was reported from the second-reporting committee with
a nongermane amendment within the jurisdiction of the first committee
and not within the bounds of the initial referral (Speaker Wright, Oct.
4, 1988, p. 28242). The Speaker also may base a sequential referral only
on the text of the bill as introduced, even if a bill is reported by the primary
committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Speaker Ging-
rich, Sept. 12, 1995, p. 24791). For example, the Speaker sequentially re-
ferred a bill where the amendment recommended by the primary committee
would delete portions of the bill within the jurisdiction of the sequential
committee (Speaker Hastert, May 10, 1999, p. 8690).
In the 96th Congress, the Speaker followed a more restrictive policy,
permitting a sequential committee to review (1) those portions of intro-
duced text within its jurisdiction and (2) those portions of an amendment
within its jurisdiction when the introduced version also warranted a se-
quential referral to the committee (Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 15, 1980, p. 7760).
The Speaker first exercised the authority to base referrals on committee
amendments by sequentially referring a bill reported from the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture), relating only to Corps of Engineers’ water projects as introduced
[612]
Rule XII, clause 2 § 816b
but amended in committee to address general water resource policy affect-

ing irrigation and reclamation projects and soil conservation programs,
to the Committees on Agriculture and Interior and Insular Affairs (now
Natural Resources) for consideration of provisions of the committee amend-
ment within their jurisdiction (Speaker O’Neill, May 20, 1981, p. 10361).
The Speaker may (1) discharge a measure from the Union Calendar and
sequentially refer it to another committee (Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 27, 1978,
p. 11742; Speaker O’Neill, May 21, 1982, p. 11169; Speaker O’Neill, June
19, 1986, p. 14741; Speaker Foley, June 12, 1990, p. 13670; Speaker
Hastert, Nov. 30, 2001, p. 23681); (2) sequentially refer a bill that has
been initially referred to several committees but reported only by one, for
consideration of the reporting committee’s amendment (Speaker O’Neill,
June 17, 1982, p. 14069; Speaker Foley, Sept. 5, 1990, p. 23477); and (3)
sequentially refer a bill referred to more than one committee when the
first committee reports, for a period ending a number of days after the
next committee reports (Speaker O’Neill, Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22681), or after
all committees report (Speaker Wright, June 10, 1988, p. 14079).
The Speaker may (1) extend the time of a sequentially referred bill and
may refer the bill to yet another committee under the same sequential
referral conditions (Speaker Albert, June 1, 1976, p. 16588); (2) delimit
the period for sequential consideration of a bill in terms of legislative days
(Speaker Wright, June 30, 1988, p. 16597); or (3) sequentially refer a bill
without day (Speaker Wright, Sept. 27, 1988, p. 25827). On the last day
of an expiring sequential referral, a committee has until midnight to file
its report with the Clerk (Oct. 9, 1991, p. 26045).
Resolutions authorizing the Speaker to establish an ad hoc committee
§ 816b. Referral
for the consideration of a particular bill under para-
procedures to an ad graph (c) of this clause, and extending the reporting
hoc select committee. date for such a committee, are privileged when offered
from the floor at the Speaker’s request (Speaker Albert,
Apr. 22, 1975, p. 11261; Speaker Albert, Jan. 26, 1976, p. 876; Speaker
O’Neill, Jan. 11, 1977, pp. 894–98; Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 21, 1977, pp.
11550–56).
Pursuant to the authority under paragraph (c)(4), the Speaker may refer
a bill to a special ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with the
approval of the House (from the members of the committees with legislative
jurisdiction) for consideration and report on that particular bill (Speaker
Albert, Apr. 22, 1975, p. 11261) or may jointly refer a report of a select
committee filed with the Clerk to standing committees of the House for
their study (Speaker Albert, Feb. 16, 1976, p. 3158).
The Speaker may refer to an ad hoc committee, established with the
approval of the House, bills, resolutions, and other matters (including mes-
sages and communications) for the purpose of considering such matters
and reporting to the House thereon, and the resolution creating such a
committee may specify whether referrals to such a committee shall be by
initial or sequential reference or by any of the other methods provided
[613]
by this clause (H. Res. 508, Apr. 21, 1977, pp. 11550–56; Speaker O’Neill,
July 11, 1977, p. 22183; Speaker O’Neill, July 20, 1977, p. 24167). For
a discussion of Speaker’s referrals to the former Select Committees on
Homeland Security, see § 723b, supra.
Clause 7 provides the mechanism for changes of referrals erroneously
made.
(d) A bill for the payment or adjudication of a

private claim against the Govern-
§ 817. Restriction on
the reference of
claims. ment may not be referred to a com-
mittee other than the Committee on
Foreign Affairs or the Committee on the Judici-
ary, except by unanimous consent.
The present form of this paragraph was made effective January 2, 1947,
as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812).
It was amended several times to conform references to renamed committees
(H. Res. 163, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7343; H. Res. 89, Feb. 5, 1979, p. 1848;
sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; sec. 213(d), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19). The old rule, adopted in 1885 and amended May 29, 1936,
provided that private claims bills be referred to a Committee on Invalid
Pensions, Claims, War Claims, Public Lands, and Accounts, in addition
to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. Certain private
bills, resolutions and amendments are barred (see § 822, infra). Before the
in former clause 4 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Under this paragraph unanimous consent is required for the reference
of a bill for the payment of a private claim to a committee other than
the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May
4, 1978, p. 12615). The Committee on the Judiciary, and not the Committee
on Ways and Means, has jurisdiction over a private bill specifying that
a certain annuity fund is exempt from taxation under provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code (Deschler, ch. 17, § 43.22).
Petitions, memorials, and private bills

3. If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
§ 818. Introduction missioner has a petition, memorial,
and reference of
petitions, memorials, or private bill to present, the Mem-
and private bills.
ber, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner shall sign it, deliver it to the Clerk, and
may specify the reference or disposition to be
made thereof. Such petition, memorial, or pri-
[614]
Rule XII, clause 3 § 819–§ 821
vate bill (except when judged by the Speaker to

be obscene or insulting) shall be entered on the
Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner presenting it and
shall be printed in the Congressional Record.
At the first organization of the House in 1789 the rules then adopted
provided for the presentation of petitions to the House by the Speaker
and Members, and for the introduction of bills by motion for leave. In
1842 it was found necessary, in order to save time, to provide that petitions
and memorials should be filed with the Clerk. In 1870, 1879, and 1887
the practice as to petitions was extended to private bills, at first as to
certain classes and later so that all should be filed with the Clerk (IV,
3312, 3365; VII, 1024). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House
former clause 1 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to the House may be
§ 819. Duties of
presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV,
Speaker and Members 3312). Petitions from the country at large are presented
in presenting by the Speaker in the manner prescribed by the rule
petitions. (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may present
a petition from the people of another State (IV, 3315,
3316). The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one committee
and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but ordinarily
the reference of a petition does not come before the House itself. A com-
mittee may receive a petition only through the House (IV, 4557).
The parliamentary law provides that the House may commit a portion
§ 820. As to division of
of a bill, or a part to one committee and part to another
bills for reference. (V, 5558), yet under the practice of the House until Jan-
uary 3, 1975, a bill or joint resolution could not be di-
vided for reference, although it might contain matters properly within the
jurisdiction of several committees (IV, 4372, 4376). On that date, the
Speaker was given authority over referral of bills as prescribed in clause
2 of this rule (formerly clause 5 of rule X). In the 106th Congress the
Speaker referred a bill by title to two committees (H.R. 1554, Apr. 26,
1999, p. 7355).
The fraudulent introduction of a bill involves a question of privilege,
§ 821. Fraudulent
and a bill so introduced was ordered stricken from the
introduction of a bill. files (IV, 3388). As the result of the unauthorized intro-
duction of several bills without the knowledge of the
Members listed as sponsors, the Speaker directed that all bills and resolu-
tions must be signed by the prime sponsor thereof in order to be accepted
for introduction (Speaker Albert, Feb. 3, 1972, p. 2521).
[615]
4. A private bill or private resolution (includ-

§ 822. Certain private ing an omnibus claim or pension
bills prohibited.
bill), or amendment thereto, may
not be received or considered in the House if it
authorizes or directs—
(a) the payment of money for property dam-
ages, for personal injuries or death for which
suit may be instituted under the Tort Claims
Procedure provided in title 28, United States
Code, or for a pension (other than to carry out
a provision of law or treaty stipulation);
(b) the construction of a bridge across a nav-
igable stream; or
(c) the correction of a military or naval
record.
This paragraph derives from section 131 of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was made a part of the standing rules
January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(a) of rule XXII (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The prohibition relating to correction of a
military record does not apply to a private bill that changes the computa-
tion of retired pay for a former member of the armed services (after exhaus-
tion of administrative remedies) but does not directly correct the military
record (Sept. 18, 1984, p. 25824).
Prohibition on commemorations
5. (a) A bill or resolution, or an amendment
§ 823. thereto, may not be introduced or
Commemoratives
prohibited. considered in the House if it estab-
lishes or expresses a commemora-
tion.
(b) In this clause the term ‘‘commemoration’’
means a remembrance, celebration, or recogni-
tion for any purpose through the designation of
a specified period of time.
[616]
The 104th Congress added the prohibition against commemorative legis-

lation and directed the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
(now Oversight and Government Reform) to consider alternative means
for establishing commemorations, including the creation of an independent
or executive branch commission for such purpose, and to report to the
House any recommendations thereon (sec. 216, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 468). No recommendations were reported. Before the House recodified
2(b) of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The House by unanimous
consent waived the prohibition against introduction of a certain joint reso-
lution specified by sponsor and title proposing a commemoration (which
was contained in the resolving clause and not merely in the preamble)
(Oct. 24, 2001, p. 20545).
Excluded matters
6. A petition, memorial, bill, or resolution ex-
§ 824. Correction of cluded under this rule shall be re-
errors in reference;
and relation to turned to the Member, Delegate, or
jurisdiction.
Resident Commissioner from whom
it was received. A petition or private bill that
has been inappropriately referred may, by direc-
tion of the committee having possession of it, be
properly referred in the manner originally pre-
sented. An erroneous reference of a petition or
private bill under this clause does not confer ju-
risdiction on a committee to consider or report
it.
This clause of the rule was first adopted in 1880, although the portion
relating to the return of certain petitions and bills was adapted from an
older rule of 1842 (IV, 3312, 3365). In the 104th Congress it was amended
to conform to the new prohibition against commemorative legislation (sec.
216, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of rule
XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Errors in reference of petitions, memorials, or private bills are corrected
at the Clerk’s table, without action by the House, at the suggestion of
the committee holding possession (IV, 4379). As provided in the rule, the
erroneous reference of a private House bill does not confer jurisdiction,
and a point of order is good when the bill comes up for consideration either
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4382–4389). But in
cases where the House itself refers a private House or Senate bill a point
[617]
of order may not be raised as to jurisdiction (IV, 4390, 4391; VII, 2131).
The Speaker may correct the erroneous referral of a bill as private by
referring it to the appropriate (Union) calendar as a public bill when re-
ported (June 1, 1988, p. 13184).
Sponsorship
7. (a) Bills, memorials, petitions, and resolu-
§ 825. Introduction, tions, endorsed with the names of
reference, and change
of reference of public Members, Delegates, or the Resi-
bills, memorials, and
resolutions.
dent Commissioner introducing
them, may be delivered to the
Speaker to be referred. The titles and references
of all bills, memorials, petitions, resolutions, and
other documents referred under this rule shall
be entered on the Journal and printed in the
Congressional Record. An erroneous reference
may be corrected by the House in accordance
with rule X on any day immediately after the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag by unanimous
consent or motion. Such a motion shall be privi-
leged if offered by direction of a committee to
which the bill has been erroneously referred or
by direction of a committee claiming jurisdiction
and shall be decided without debate.
(b)(1) The sponsor of a public bill or public res-
olution may name cosponsors. The name of a co-
sponsor added after the initial printing of a bill
or resolution shall appear in the next printing of
the bill or resolution on the written request of
the sponsor. Such a request may be submitted to
the Speaker at any time until the last committee
authorized to consider and report the bill or res-
olution reports it to the House or is discharged
from its consideration.
[618]
(2) The name of a cosponsor of a bill or resolu-

tion may be deleted by unanimous consent. The
Speaker may entertain such a request only by
the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner whose name is to be deleted or by the
sponsor of the bill or resolution, and only until
the last committee authorized to consider and
report the bill or resolution reports it to the
House or is discharged from its consideration.
The Speaker may not entertain a request to de-
lete the name of the sponsor of a bill or resolu-
tion. A deletion shall be indicated by date in the
next printing of the bill or resolution.
(3) The addition or deletion of the name of a
cosponsor of a bill or resolution shall be entered
on the Journal and printed in the Congressional
Record of that day.
(4) A bill or resolution shall be reprinted on
the written request of the sponsor. Such a re-
quest may be submitted to the Speaker only
when 20 or more cosponsors have been added
since the last printing of the bill or resolution.
The rule of 1789 provided that all bills should be introduced on report
of a committee or by motion for leave. By various modifications it was
first provided that all classes of private bills should be introduced by filing
them with the Clerk, and in 1890 this system was by this rule extended
to all public bills (IV, 3365). In the 105th and 107th Congresses paragraph
(a) was amended, and in the 112th Congress paragraph (b) was amended,
to effect technical corrections (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121; sec. 2(x),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26; sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
was found in former clause 4 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
At its organization for the 106th Congress the House adopted an order
of the House that the first 10 bill numbers be reserved for assignment
by the Speaker during a specified period (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). In the 107th and 108th Congresses the House adopted the same
[619]
order, but extended the applicable time to the entire first session (sec.
3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p.
7). In the 108th Congress, the House by unanimous consent extended such
authority through the remainder of the Congress (Oct. 4, 2004, p. 20566).
In the 109th through 111th Congresses the House adopted the same initial
order but for the entire Congress (sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p.
44; sec. 217, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. l) and the House in the 112th Congress expanded it to reserve
the second 10 bill numbers for assignment by the Minority Leader (sec.
3(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The motion for a change of reference and subsidiary motions take prece-
dence over motions to go into the Committee of the Whole for the consider-
ation of appropriation bills and the consideration of conference reports (VII,
2124), and may not be debated (VII, 2126–2128). But the motion is not
in order on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 2117), and is not privileged under
the rule if the original reference was not erroneous (VII, 2125). The motion
may be amended, but the amendment, like the original motion, is subject
to the requirement that it be authorized by the committee (VII, 2127).
The motion must apply to a single bill and not to a class of bills (VII,
2125).
According to the later practice the erroneous reference of a public bill,
if it remain uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction to the committee receiv-
ing it (IV, 4365–4371; VII, 1489, 2108–2113; VIII, 2312). It is too late to
move a change of reference after such committee has reported the bill
(VII, 2110; VIII, 2312), but the Speaker may, pursuant to authority granted
by clause 2 (formerly clause 5 of rule X) effective January 3, 1975 (H.
Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), refer a bill sequentially to
other committees. All bills and resolutions must be signed by the sponsor
thereof (Speaker Albert, Feb. 3, 1972, p. 2521).
Joint sponsorship of public bills by not more than 25 Members was au-
thorized in the 90th Congress (H. Res. 42, Apr. 25, 1967, p. 10712). Prior
thereto a special committee had reported against this practice and the
report had been adopted by the House (VII, 1029). Effective January 3,
1979 (H. Res. 86, 95th Cong., Oct. 10, 1978, p. 34929), paragraph (b) was
added to allow unlimited cosponsorship and to provide a mechanism for
Members to add their names as cosponsors to bills or resolutions that have
already been introduced, up until the bill is finally reported from com-
mittee, and on January 15, 1979, the Speaker announced his directive
for the processing of lists of cosponsors pursuant to the new clause (Speaker
O’Neill, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 19).
Although, before the 106th Congress, paragraph (b)(2) only permitted
a cosponsoring Member to request unanimous consent to be deleted as
a cosponsor, the sponsor of a measure was permitted to request unanimous
consent to delete from the permanent Record the name of a cosponsor inad-
vertently or erroneously listed (Feb. 9, 1982). This practice was codified
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Unanimous-consent
[620]
requests to delete Members’ names as cosponsors are not entertained after

the last committee authorized to consider the bill has reported to the House
(or has been discharged from further consideration) (Oct. 8, 1985, p. 26668;
Feb. 10, 2000, p. 982), and the Speaker has vacated unanimous-consent
orders of the House to delete cosponsors when advised that the bill had
already been reported (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458). A Member may request
unanimous consent to be deleted as a cosponsor of an unreported bill during
its consideration under suspension of the rules and before a final vote
thereon (June 9, 1986, p. 12979).
By unanimous consent a Member may be added as a cosponsor of an
unreported bill if the sponsor is no longer a Member of the House (Aug.
4, 1983, p. 23188; Oct. 3, 2008, p. l), and a designated Member may be
authorized to sign and submit lists of additional cosponsors if the actual
sponsor is no longer a Member (e.g., June 23, 1989, p. 13271; Apr. 5, 2000,
p. 4487; June 20, 2001, p. 11196; Sept. 21, 2004, p. 18827), but the Chair
will not otherwise entertain a request to add cosponsors by a Member
other than the sponsor (Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5026). In fact, the Chair will
not entertain any unanimous-consent request to add a cosponsor (July 24,
2000, p. 15878), whether such request includes only the Member making
the request (Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29352), includes all Members (Dec. 18, 1985,
p. 37765), or includes a specified additional sponsor (Jan. 28, 1985, p. 1141;
May 23, 1985, p. 13421). Such requests must be made by the sponsor
through the hopper not later than the last day on which any committee
is authorized to consider and report the measure to the House (Nov. 4,
1997, p. 24413).
The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to designate
a co-offeror of an amendment (May 20, 2004, p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004,
p. 18429).
At its organization for the 104th Congress the House resolved that each
of the first 20 bills and each of the first two joint resolutions introduced
in the House in that Congress could have more than one Member reflected
as a sponsor (sec. 223(g), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469); and the Speaker
stated that all signatures of such ‘‘primary’’ sponsors would be required
on the bills (Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). A Member was subse-
quently added as such a ‘‘primary’’ sponsor by unanimous consent (Jan.
18, 1995, p. 1447).
(5) When a bill or resolution is introduced ‘‘by

§ 826. Introduction of request,’’ those words shall be en-
bills, resolutions, or
memorials by request. tered on the Journal and printed in
the Congressional Record.

This provision was adopted in 1888 (IV, 3366). Before the House recodi-
fied its rules in the 106th Congress, it was found in former clause 6 of
rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It has never been the practice
[621]
§ 826a–§ 827 Rule XII, clause 8
of the House to permit the names of the persons requesting the introduction
of the bill to be printed in the Record.
(c)(1) A bill or joint resolution may not be in-

§ 826a. Constitutional troduced unless the sponsor sub-
authority statement
upon introduction. mits for printing in the Congres-
sional Record a statement citing as
specifically as practicable the power or powers
granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact
the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall
appear in a portion of the Record designated for
that purpose and be made publicly available in
electronic form by the Clerk.
(2) Before consideration of a Senate bill or
joint resolution, the chair of a committee of ju-
risdiction may submit the statement required
under subparagraph (1) as though the chair
were the sponsor of the Senate bill or joint reso-
lution.
Paragraph (c) was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Executive communications
8. Estimates of appropriations and all other
§ 827. Reception and communications from the executive
reference of executive
communications, departments intended for the con-
including estimates.
sideration of any committees of the
House shall be addressed to the Speaker for re-
ferral as provided in clause 2 of rule XIV.
This rule was adopted in 1867 and amended in 1880 (V, 6593). It was
renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XL (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Formerly estimates of appropriations were
transmitted through the Secretary of the Treasury (IV, 3573–3576, 4045),
but under 31 U.S.C. 1105 they are now included in the budget submitted
by the President.
[622]
Rule XIII, clause 1 § 828
RULE XIII
CALENDARS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Calendars
1. (a) All business reported by committees
§ 828. Calendar for shall be referred to one of the fol-
reports of committees.
lowing three calendars:
(1) A Calendar of the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, to
which shall be referred public bills and public
resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or
charge on the people, directly or indirectly
making appropriations of money or property
or requiring such appropriations to be made,
authorizing payments out of appropriations al-
ready made, releasing any liability to the
United States for money or property, or refer-
ring a claim to the Court of Claims.
(2) A House Calendar, to which shall be re-
ferred all public bills and public resolutions
not requiring referral to the Calendar of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
(3) A Private Calendar as provided in clause
5 of rule XV, to which shall be referred all pri-
vate bills and private resolutions.
This provision was adopted in 1880 and amended in 1911 (VI, 742); but
as early as 1820 a rule was adopted creating calendars for the Committees
of the Whole. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47),
including a change in subparagraph (3) from the ‘‘Calendar of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House’’ to the ‘‘Private Calendar.’’ Bills not requiring
consideration in Committee of the Whole were considered when reported,
but in 1880 the House Calendar was created to remedy the delays in mak-
ing reports caused by such consideration (IV, 3115). Reference of a bill
[623]
§ 830 Rule XIII, clause 1
to a calendar is governed by the text of the bill as referred to committee,

and amendments reported by committees are not considered (VIII, 2392).
A motion to correct an error in referring a bill to the proper calendar
presents a question of privilege (III, 2614, 2615); but a mere clerical error
in the calendar does not give rise to such question (III, 2616). A bill improp-
erly reported is not entitled to a place on the calendar (IV, 3117).
A bill on the wrong calendar may be transferred to the proper calendar
as of date of original reference by direction of the Speaker (VI, 744–748;
VII, 859, 2406; Dec. 7, 1950, p. 16307; Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10242; Sept. 10,
1990, p. 23677). But the Speaker has no authority to change calendar ref-
erence made by the House (VI, 749; VII, 859). Reports from the Court
of Claims did not remain on the calendar from Congress to Congress, even
when a law seemed so to provide (IV, 3298–3302). In determining whether
a bill should be placed on the House or Union Calendar, clause 3 of rule
XVIII should be consulted. The Speaker may correct the erroneous referral
of a bill as private by referring it to the appropriate (Union) calendar as
a public bill when reported (June 1, 1988, p. 13184).
Although the Speaker has no general authority to remove a reported
bill from the Union Calendar (other than to correct the erroneous reference
of a reported bill between calendars), the Speaker may discharge a bill
therefrom for reference to another committee when required (1) by section
401(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, permitting 15-day referral
to the Committee on Appropriations of reported bills providing new entitle-
ment authority in excess of that allocated to the reporting committee in
connection with the most recently agreed-to concurrent resolution on the
budget (Speaker O’Neill, Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28153), or (2) by clause 2 of
rule XII (formerly clause 5 of rule X), authorizing and directing the Speaker
to assure that each committee has responsibility to consider legislation
within its jurisdiction by fashioning sequential referrals when appropriate
(Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 27, 1978, p. 11742; June 19, 1986, p. 14741).
(b) There is established a Calendar of Motions

§ 830. Motion to to Discharge Committees as pro-
discharge.
vided in clause 2 of rule XV.
From the 106th Congress through the 108th Congress, paragraph (b)
was occupied by a cross reference to the Corrections Calendar. The provi-
sion was added when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47) and was stricken when the Corrections
Calendar was abolished in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 2005, p. 43). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
the current paragraph (b) was found in former clause 5 of rule XIII (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[624]
Rule XIII, clause 2 § 831–§ 833
Filing and printing of reports

2. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph
§ 831. Reports filed (2), all reports of committees (other
with the Clerk.
than those filed from the floor) shall
be delivered to the Clerk for printing and ref-
erence to the proper calendar under the direc-
tion of the Speaker in accordance with clause 1.
The title or subject of each report shall be en-
tered on the Journal and printed in the Congres-
sional Record.
(2) A bill or resolution reported adversely
§ 832. Adverse reports. (other than those filed as privi-
leged) shall be laid on the table un-
less a committee to which the bill or resolution
was referred requests at the time of the report
its referral to an appropriate calendar under
clause 1 or unless, within three days thereafter,
makes such a request.
A technical amendment was effected by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
1999, p. 47), but the 111th Congress reversed an inadvertent change to
paragraph (a)(2) to restore its application to nonprivileged reports only
(sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l) (contrast the 1999 codification
with its predecessor in form; VI, 411).
When the House codified its rules in the 106th Congress, it deleted the
portion of clause 2 of rule XVIII that required the print-
§ 833. Requirement
that reports of ing of reports. That provision was redundant because
committees be in this provision carries the same requirement (H. Res.
writing and be 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Former clause 2 of rule XVIII
printed.
was adopted in 1880 (V, 5647).
The House insists on its requirement that all reports be in writing (IV,
4655) and does not receive verbal reports as to bills (IV, 4654). But the
sufficiency of a report is passed on by the House and not by the Speaker
(II, 1339; IV, 4653). A report is not necessarily signed by all those concur-
ring (II, 1274) or even by any of those concurring, but minority, supple-
mental, and additional views are signed by those submitting them (IV,
[625]
§ 834–§ 835 Rule XIII, clause 2
4671; VIII, 2229; see clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI). Under this rule, the printing
requirement is not a condition precedent to consideration of the matter
reported (VIII, 2307–2309). However, for various availability and layover
requirements in the rules, see clause 6 of rule X (§ 764, supra), clauses
4, 5, and 6 of rule XIII (§§ 850–852, § 853, § 857, infra, respectively), and
clause 8 of rule XXII (§ 1082, infra). See also clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII
(§ 838, infra), which excepts from the availability requirements of clause
4 supplemental reports to correct a technical error in the depiction of record
votes in a committee report.
Unless filed with a report pursuant to clause 2(c) or rule XIII, minority,
supplemental, or additional views may be presented only with the consent
of the House (IV, 4600; VIII, 2231, 2248).
It has been held that the fact that a report was not printed by the Public
Printer as originally made to the House does not prevent the consideration
of the matter reported (VIII, 2307). A committee may not file its report
on a bill after the House has passed the bill (Sept. 30, 1985, p. 25270).
(b)(1) It shall be the duty of the chair of each

§ 834. Chair’s duty. committee to report or cause to be
reported promptly to the House a
measure or matter approved by the committee
and to take or cause to be taken steps necessary
to bring the measure or matter to a vote.
(2) In any event, the report of a committee on
§ 835. Filing by a measure that has been approved
majority of committee.
by the committee shall be filed
within seven calendar days (exclusive of days on
which the House is not in session) after the day
on which a written request for the filing of the
report, signed by a majority of the members of
the committee, has been filed with the clerk of
the committee. The clerk of the committee shall
immediately notify the chair of the filing of such
a request. This subparagraph does not apply to
a report of the Committee on Rules with respect
to a rule, joint rule, or order of business of the
House, or to the reporting of a resolution of in-
[626]
quiry addressed to the head of an executive de-

partment.
Subparagraph (1) (formerly clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI) is derived from
section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812)
and was made a part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24).
It is sufficient authority for the chair to call up a bill on Calendar Wednes-
day (Speaker Rayburn, Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2162). Subparagraph (2) (formerly
clause 2(l)(1)(B) of rule XI) is derived from section 105 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was made part of the rules
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Former clause
2(l)(1)(C) of rule XI was added by the Committee Reform Amendments
of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), to incorporate section 307 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (88 Stat. 313), requiring the Committee on Appropriations to strive
to complete committee action on all regular appropriation bills before re-
porting any of them to the House, and to submit a report comparing speci-
fied spending levels, but was repealed by section 232(e) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177). An obso-
lete reference in former subdivision (B) to the former subdivision (C) was
deleted in the 104th Congress (sec. 223(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469).
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(l)(1) of
rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Absent a special order of the House, committee reports must be sub-
mitted while the House is in session, except as permitted under clause
2(c) of rule XIII with respect to the guaranteed time for composing separate
views (see § 836, infra) (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31951).
(c) All supplemental, minority, or additional

§ 836. Filing with views filed under clause 2(l) of rule
minority views.
XI by one or more members of a
committee shall be included in, and shall be a
part of, the report filed by the committee with
respect to a measure or matter. When time
guaranteed by clause 2(l) of rule XI has expired
(or, if sooner, when all separate views have been
received), the committee may arrange to file its
report with the Clerk not later than one hour
after the expiration of such time. This clause
and provisions of clause 2(l) of rule XI do not
[627]
preclude the immediate filing or printing of a

committee report in the absence of a timely re-
quest for the opportunity to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views as provided in
clause 2(l) of rule XI.
The first sentence of this paragraph was originally included in section
107 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was
made a part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). The remainder of the paragraph (establishing standing authority
for committees to file reports with the Clerk after honoring the guarantee
of the rule) was adopted in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Content of reports
3. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph
§ 837. Single volume. (2), the report of a committee on a
measure or matter shall be printed
in a single volume that—
(A) shall include all supplemental, minority,
or additional views that have been submitted
by the time of the filing of the report; and
(B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any
such supplemental, minority, or additional
views (and any material submitted under
paragraph (c)(3)) are included as part of the
report.
(2) A committee may file a supplemental re-
§ 838. Technical error. port for the correction of a technical
error in its previous report on a

measure or matter. A supplemental report only
correcting errors in the depiction of record votes
under paragraph (b) may be filed under this
subparagraph and shall not be subject to the re-
[628]
quirement in clause 4 or clause 6 concerning the

availability of reports.
Clause 3 (formerly clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI) was originally included in
section 107 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140)
and was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Con-
gress, this provision was found in former clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI, and
the former companion provision of clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI entitling mem-
bers to supplemental, minority, or additional views was transferred to new
clause 2(l) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The last sentence
of subparagraph (2) was added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(k), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A technical correction to subparagraph (1)(B) was
effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a supplemental report is subject
to three-day availability under clause 4 of this rule (Deschler, ch. 17,
§ 64.1). A committee may file a supplemental report pursuant to subpara-
graph (2) to correct a technical error in the depiction of a bill number
in the portion of the report regarding congressional earmarks, targeted
tax benefits, and targeted tariff benefits under clause 9 of rule XXI (July
30, 2010, p. l).
(b) With respect to each record vote on a mo-

tion to report a measure or matter
§ 839. Vote on
reporting.
of a public nature, and on any
amendment offered to the measure or matter,
the total number of votes cast for and against,
and the names of members voting for and
against, shall be included in the committee re-
port. The preceding sentence does not apply to
votes taken in executive session by the Com-
mittee on Ethics.
The requirement of subparagraph (b) (formerly clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule
XI) was contained in section 104(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and was expanded in the 104th Congress
to require that reports also reflect the total number of votes cast for and
against any public measure or matter and any amendment thereto and
the names of those voting for and against (sec. 209, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 468). An exception for the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) was adopted in the 105th Congress (sec. 8, H. Res.
168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318) and expanded to include the Committee
[629]
on Rules in the 110th and 111th Congresses (sec. 503, H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 2(c)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
was found in former clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). If the accompanying report erroneously reflects information required
by this paragraph, a bill would be subject to a point of order against its
consideration, unless corrected pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) by a supple-
mental report; however, a point of order would not lie if the error was
introduced by the Government Printing Office (Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1613).
A question alleging that a committee report contained descriptions of re-
corded votes (as required by this clause) that deliberately mischaracterized
certain amendments and directing the chair of the committee to file a sup-
plemental report to change those descriptions was held to constitute a ques-
tion of the privileges of the House (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418).
(c) The report of a committee on a measure

that has been approved by the com-
§ 840. Content of
reports.
mittee shall include, separately set
out and clearly identified, the following:
(1) Oversight findings and recommendations
under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
(2) The statement required by section 308(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ex-
cept that an estimate of new budget authority
shall include, when practicable, a comparison
of the total estimated funding level for the rel-
evant programs to the appropriate levels
under current law.
(3) An estimate and comparison prepared by
the Director of the Congressional Budget Of-
fice under section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the
committee before the filing of the report.
(4) A statement of general performance
goals and objectives, including outcome-related
[630]
goals and objectives, for which the measure

authorizes funding.
This provision (formerly clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI) became effective Janu-
ary 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). It was amended
in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70), to correct a
cross-reference, and in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49)
to correct the typographical transposition of a phrase. Subparagraphs (2)
and (3) (formerly clauses 2(l)(3)(B) and 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI) are require-
ments of sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 297). Subparagraph (2) (formerly clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI) was
amended in the 99th Congress by section 232(f) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177) to include new
entitlement and credit authority in conformity with section 308(a)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended by that law. It was
again amended in the 104th Congress to require estimates of new budget
authority, when practicable, to compare the total estimated funding for
the program to the appropriate level under current law (sec. 102(a), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). In the 104th and 106th Congresses, it was
amended to conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This provision
was amended in the 105th Congress to reflect the repeal of the collective
definition of ‘‘new spending authority’’ and the revision of various remain-
ing parts and to effect a technical and conforming change (Budget Enforce-
ment Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33)). Subparagraph (4) was amend-
ed to replace a requirement that committees include in their reports over-
sight findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government
Reform with a requirement that they include a statement of performance
goals and objectives (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(d) Each report of a committee on a public bill

or public joint resolution shall con-
§ 841. Estimate of cost.
tain the following:

(1)(A) An estimate by the committee of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out
the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in
which it is reported and in each of the five fis-
cal years following that fiscal year (or for the
authorized duration of any program author-
ized by the bill or joint resolution if less than
five years);
[631]
(B) a comparison of the estimate of costs de-

scribed in subdivision (A) made by the com-
mittee with any estimate of such costs made
by a Government agency and submitted to
such committee; and
(C) when practicable, a comparison of the
total estimated funding level for the relevant
programs with the appropriate levels under
current law.
(2)(A) In subparagraph (1) the term ‘‘Gov-
ernment agency’’ includes any department,
agency, establishment, wholly owned Govern-
ment corporation, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government or the government of the
District of Columbia.
(B) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to the
Committee on Appropriations, the Committee
on House Administration, the Committee on
Rules, or the Committee on Ethics, and does
not apply when a cost estimate and compari-
son prepared by the Director of the Congres-
sional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been in-
cluded in the report under paragraph (c)(3).
This provision was adopted in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144) as part of the implementation of section 252(b) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was amended in the
95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) to remove references
to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subparagraph (2)(B) (formerly
clause 7(d)) was amended in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981,
pp. 98–113) to render committee cost estimates optional if an estimate
by the Congressional Budget Office is included in the report. It was amend-
ed by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) to require
five-year estimates of revenue changes in legislative reports. In the 104th
Congress it was amended to require estimates of new budget authority,
when practicable, to compare the total estimated funding for the program
[632]
to the appropriate level under current law (sec. 102(b), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). In the 104th and 106th Congresses subparagraph (2)(B)
(formerly clause 7(d)) was amended to reflect a change in committee name
47). In the 105th Congress it was amended to effect a technical change
(Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33)). In the 112th
Congress subparagraphs (2) and (3) were redesignated when a former sub-
paragraph (1) was repealed (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l)
and subparagraph (2)(B) was amended to reflect a change in committee
name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Before the House recodified
7 of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A committee cost estimate identifying certain spending authority as re-
curring annually and indefinitely was held necessarily to address the five-
year period required by section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (Nov. 20, 1993, p. 31354).
Under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, each report accom-
panying a bill or joint resolution relating to terms and
laws to legislative conditions of employment or access to public services
branch. or accommodations must describe the manner in which
the provisions apply to the legislative branch or a state-
ment of the reasons the provisions do not apply; and any Member may
raise a point of order against the consideration of a bill or joint resolution
not complying with this requirement, which may be waived in the House
by majority vote (sec. 102(b)(3), P.L. 104–1; 109 Stat. 6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–4; 109 Stat. 48)
§ 843. Unfunded
added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional
mandates. Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658–658g) that imposes
several requirements on committees with respect to
measures effecting ‘‘Federal mandates’’ (secs. 423–424; 2 U.S.C. 658b–c)
and establishes points of order to permit separate votes on whether to
enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d). See § 1127, infra.
Former clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI, which became a part of the rules under
§ 844. Former
the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
constitutional January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
authority requirement p. 34470), required an analytical statement of infla-
and inflationary tionary impact. It was converted in the 105th Congress
impact requirement.
to require a statement of constitutional authority (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121) and was repealed in the 112th Congress in
conjunction with the establishment of clause 7(c) of rule XII (sec. 2(a)(2),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). If a point of order were sustained under
this subparagraph, the measure would be ‘‘recommitted’’ to await possible
return to the Calendar by the filing of a supplemental report pursuant
to clause 3(a)(2) correcting the technical error (Feb. 13, 1995, p. 4591).
[633]
(e)(1) Whenever a committee reports a bill or

§ 846. ‘‘Ramseyer joint resolution proposing to repeal
Rule.’’
or amend a statute or part thereof,
it shall include in its report or in an accom-
panying document—
(A) the text of a statute or part thereof that
is proposed to be repealed; and
(B) a comparative print of any part of the
bill or joint resolution proposing to amend the
statute and of the statute or part thereof pro-
posed to be amended, showing by appropriate
typographical devices the omissions and inser-
tions proposed.
(2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolu-
tion proposing to repeal or amend a statute or
part thereof with a recommendation that the bill
or joint resolution be amended, the comparative
print required by subparagraph (1) shall reflect
the changes in existing law proposed to be made
by the bill or joint resolution as proposed to be
amended.
The first part of this paragraph (formerly clause 3) was adopted January
28, 1929 (VIII, 2234), was redesignated January 3, 1953 (p. 24), and sub-
paragraph (2) (formerly a proviso in clause 3(2)) was added September
22, 1961 (p. 20823). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of this rule (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Technical failure of a committee report to comply with the ‘‘Ramseyer’’
rule may be remedied by a supplemental report (VIII, 2247). Although
the filing of such a corrective report formerly required the consent of the
House (VIII, 2248), it may now be filed with the Clerk pursuant to clause
3(a)(2). Reports held to violate the rule because they are not susceptible
to correction by the filing of a supplemental report under clause 3(a)(2),
as in the case of a substantial violation, are automatically recommitted
to the respective committees reporting them (VIII, 2237, 2245, 2250). When
a bill is so recommitted, further proceedings are de novo and the bill is
[634]
considered again and reported by the committee as if no previous report

had been made (VIII, 2249).
Although a bill proposes but one minor and obvious change in existing
law, the failure of the report to indicate the change is in violation of the
rule (VIII, 2236). The statute proposed to be amended must be quoted
in the report and it is not sufficient that it is incorporated in the bill (VIII,
2238). Under the rule the committee report on a bill amending existing
law by the addition of a proviso should quote in full the section immediately
preceding the proposed amendment (VIII, 2237). The rule applies to appro-
priation bills if such bills include legislative provisions (VIII, 2241) and
reports on appropriation bills are also subject to the requirements of clause
3(f) of rule XIII, requiring a concise statement of the effect of any direct
or indirect changes in the application of existing law. In order to fall within
the purview of the rule the bill must seek to repeal or amend specifically
an existing law (VIII, 2235, 2239, 2240).
Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless specifically
waiving points of order, do not preclude the point of order that reports
on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in existing law (VIII, 2245).
The point of order that a report fails to comply with the rule is properly
made when the bill is called up in the House and comes too late after
the House has resolved into the Committee of the Whole for its consider-
ation (VIII, 2243–2245).
Where the comparative print contained certain errors in punctuation
and capitalization and utilized abbreviations not appearing in existing pro-
visions of law, the Speaker held that the committee report was in substan-
tial compliance with the rule and overruled a point of order against the
report (Deschler, ch. 17, §§ 60.13, 60.14).
(f)(1) A report of the Committee on Appropria-

tions on a general appropriation bill
§ 847. Content of
reports on
shall include—
appropriation bills.
(A) a concise statement describing the effect

of any provision of the accompanying bill that
directly or indirectly changes the application
of existing law; and
(B) a list of all appropriations contained in
the bill for expenditures not currently author-
ized by law for the period concerned (excepting
classified intelligence or national security pro-
grams, projects, or activities), along with a
statement of the last year for which such ex-
[635]
penditures were authorized, the level of ex-

penditures authorized for that year, the actual
level of expenditures for that year, and the
level of appropriations in the bill for such ex-
penditures.
This provision (formerly clause 3 of rule XXI) became a part of the rules
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). This provision was
amended on January 14, 1975 (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 32) to confine
its applicability to general appropriation bills, and again in the 104th Con-
gress to add subparagraph (1)(B) concerning unauthorized items (sec.
215(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Subparagraph (1)(B) was amended
in the 107th Congress to require more detail on the status of unauthorized
appropriations (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Before the House
former clause 3 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(2) Whenever the Committee on Appropria-

tions reports a bill or joint resolution including
matter specified in clause 1(b)(2) or (3) of rule X,
it shall include—
(A) in the bill or joint resolution, separate
headings for ‘‘Rescissions’’ and ‘‘Transfers of
Unexpended Balances’’; and
(B) in the report of the committee, a sepa-
rate section listing such rescissions and trans-
fers.
This provision (formerly clause 1(b) of rule X) was added by the Com-
mittee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 1(b) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
(g) Whenever the Committee on Rules reports

§ 848. Comparative a resolution proposing to repeal or
print.
amend a standing rule of the
House, it shall include in its report or in an ac-
companying document—
[636]
(1) the text of any rule or part thereof that

is proposed to be repealed; and
(2) a comparative print of any part of the
resolution proposing to amend the rule and of
the rule or part thereof proposed to be amend-
ed, showing by appropriate typographical de-
vices the omissions and insertions proposed.
This provision (formerly clause 4(d) of rule XI) was added to the rules
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and is similar to
the ‘‘Ramseyer Rule’’ requirements of paragraph (e) relating to bills and
joint resolutions repealing or amending existing law. Before the House
former clause 4(d) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause
is applicable to resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules that
propose direct permanent repeal or amendment of a rule of the House,
but does not apply to resolutions providing temporary waivers of rules
during the consideration of particular legislative business (Speaker Albert,
Mar. 20, 1975, p. 7676; Mar. 24, 1975, p. 8418), or to a special order of
business resolution providing for the consideration of a bill with textual
modifications that would effect certain changes in House rules on enact-
ment of the bill into law, but not itself repealing or amending any rule
(May 27, 1993, p. 11597).
(h)(1) It shall not be in order to consider a bill

or joint resolution reported by the
§ 849. Tax complexity
analysis.
Committee on Ways and Means
that proposes to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 unless—
(A) the report includes a tax complexity
analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on
Internal Revenue Taxation in accordance with
section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or
(B) the chair of the Committee on Ways and
Means causes such a tax complexity analysis
to be printed in the Congressional Record be-
[637]
fore consideration of the bill or joint resolu-

tion.
This provision was added by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 as a new clause 2(l)(8) of rule XI, effective January
1, 1999 (sec. 4022, P.L. 105–206). It was transferred to this paragraph
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Con-
(2)(A) It shall not be in order to consider a bill

or joint resolution reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means that proposes to amend the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 unless—
(i) the report includes a macroeconomic im-
pact analysis;
(ii) the report includes a statement from the
Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Tax-
ation explaining why a macroeconomic impact
analysis is not calculable; or
(iii) the chair of the Committee on Ways and
Means causes a macroeconomic impact anal-
ysis to be printed in the Congressional Record
before consideration of the bill or joint resolu-
tion.
(B) In subdivision (A), the term ‘‘macro-
economic impact analysis’’ means—
(i) an estimate prepared by the Joint Com-
mittee on Internal Revenue Taxation of the
changes in economic output, employment, cap-
ital stock, and tax revenues expected to result
from enactment of the proposal; and
(ii) a statement from the Joint Committee
on Internal Revenue Taxation identifying the
critical assumptions and the source of data
underlying that estimate.
[638]
This requirement of a macroeconomic analysis of any tax proposal re-

placed a provision that authorized the chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means to request the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation
to prepare a dynamic estimate of revenue changes proposed in a measure
designated by the Majority Leader as major tax legislation (sec. 2(j), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). The former provision was added in the 105th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121); but, before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, it was found in former clause 7(e) of rule
XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was elimi-
nated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
Availability of reports
4. (a)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph
§ 850. Three-day (2), it shall not be in order to con-
layover.
sider in the House a measure or
matter reported by a committee until the third
calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or
legal holidays except when the House is in ses-
sion on such a day) on which each report of a
committee on that measure or matter has been
available to Members, Delegates, and the Resi-
dent Commissioner.
(2) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to—
(A) a resolution providing a rule, joint rule,
or order of business reported by the Com-
mittee on Rules considered under clause 6;
(B) a resolution providing amounts from the
applicable accounts described in clause 1(k)(1)
of rule X reported by the Committee on House
Administration considered under clause 6 of
rule X;
(C) a resolution presenting a question of the
privileges of the House reported by any com-
mittee;
[639]
(D) a measure for the declaration of war, or

the declaration of a national emergency, by
Congress; and
(E) a measure providing for the disapproval
of a decision, determination, or action by a
Government agency that would become, or
continue to be, effective unless disapproved or
otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of
Congress. In this subdivision the term ‘‘Gov-
ernment agency’’ includes any department,
agency, establishment, wholly owned Govern-
ment corporation, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government or of the government of
the District of Columbia.
(b) A committee that reports a measure or
matter shall make every reasonable effort to
have its hearings thereon (if any) printed and
available for distribution to Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner before the con-
sideration of the measure or matter in the
House.
This provision (formerly clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) was originally contained
in section 108 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140)
and was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144). It was amended in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
14, 1975, p. 20), in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–
70), and in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8). In the 102d
Congress it was amended to clarify the availability requirements for re-
ported measures, including concurrent resolutions on the budget (H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). It was amended in the 104th Congress to count
as a ‘‘calendar day’’ any day on which the House is in session (H. Res.
254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077), and again in the 105th Congress to achieve
like treatment in the case of a concurrent resolution on the budget (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The rule was later amended in the 105th
Congress to conform to a change in the layover requirement for a concur-
rent resolution on the budget (Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10109,
P.L. 105–33)). In the 106th Congress two technical and conforming correc-
[640]
tions were effected. The 106th Congress also recodified the rules, transfer-
ring this provision from former clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, which consisted
of this provision and current clause 6(a)(2) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (2)(C) was added in the 107th Congress
(sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). In the 109th Congress a subdivision
was deleted as obsolete upon the repeal of the Corrections Calendar and
in that Congress and in the 112th conforming changes to subparagraph
(2)(B) were effected (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
This availability requirement is not applicable to privileged reports from
the Committee on Rules or to bills before the House that have not been
reported from committee (Speaker Albert, Aug. 10, 1976, p. 26793). The
Committee on Rules has the authority under clause 5(a) of rule XIII (for-
merly clause 4(a) of rule XI) to report a special order making in order
the text of an introduced bill as a substitute original text for a reported
bill, and no point of order lies that such introduced text has not been avail-
able for three days under this rule, which only applies to the consideration
of reported measures themselves (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29973). The exceptions
from the three-day layover requirement were expanded in the 97th Con-
gress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) to include resolutions called up pursu-
ant to legislative veto provisions in laws having the effect of approving
or invalidating the actions of any government agency (and not just agencies
of the executive branch). That exception allows the consideration of a meas-
ure disapproving an executive branch decision pursuant to statute within
three days of the expiration of the congressional review period, notwith-
standing the three-day availability requirement (concurrent resolution dis-
approving a regulation of the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the
Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act, P.L. 96–252) (May 26, 1982,
pp. 12027–30). A report from a committee raising a question of the privi-
leges of the House, such as a report relating to the contemptuous conduct
of a witness before the committee, may be considered notwithstanding the
availability requirements of this clause (Speaker Albert, July 13, 1971,
pp. 24720–23; see also VI, 48; Deschler, ch. 14, § 7.4, fn. 10, and Oct. 8,
1998, p. 24680, with respect to impeachment reports; and Feb. 12, 1998,
p. 1323, with respect to a resolution dismissing an election contest reported
as privileged under clause 5(a)(3) of rule XIII). Clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII
was amended in the 107th Congress to except from the three-day layover
requirement a supplemental report only correcting errors in the depiction
of record votes under clause 3(b) (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p.
25).
A committee expense resolution reported by the Committee on House
§ 851. One-day layover.
Administration pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIII need
only be available for one day. However, other resolu-
tions reported from that committee that are privileged (such as a resolution
authorizing the printing of material as a House document), but that do
[641]
not constitute questions of the privileges of the House, are subject to this
clause (Speaker Albert, Mar. 6, 1975, p. 5537).
(c) A general appropriation bill reported by the

§ 852. Printed hearings Committee on Appropriations may
on appropriation bills.
not be considered in the House
until the third calendar day (excluding Satur-
days, Sundays, and legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) on which
printed hearings of the Committee on Appropria-
tions thereon have been available to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
This provision from section 139(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946 was made a part of the standing rules January 3, 1953 (p. 24),
and was amended (by the addition of the parenthetical clause) on January
22, 1971 (p. 144). In the 104th Congress it was amended to count as a
‘‘calendar day’’ any day on which the House is in session (H. Res. 254,
Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XXI; and
a requirement that the report also be available for three days was deleted
as redundant because reports on general appropriation bills are covered
under the availability requirements of paragraph (a) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In counting the ‘‘three calendar days’’ specified in the clause,
either the date the bill is filed or the date on which it is to be called up
for consideration are counted, but not both (May 26, 1969, p. 13720).
Privileged reports, generally

5. (a) The following committees shall have
§ 853. Privileged leave to report at any time on the
reports.
following matters, respectively:
(1) The Committee on Appropriations, on
general appropriation bills and on joint resolu-
tions continuing appropriations for a fiscal
year after September 15 in the preceding fis-
cal year.
(2) The Committee on the Budget, on the
matters required to be reported by such com-
[642]
mittee under titles III and IV of the Congres-

sional Budget Act of 1974.
(3) The Committee on House Administra-
tion, on enrolled bills, on contested elections,
on matters referred to it concerning printing
for the use of the House or the two Houses, on
expenditure of the applicable accounts of the
House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X,
and on matters relating to preservation and
availability of noncurrent records of the House
under rule VII.
(4) The Committee on Rules, on rules, joint
rules, and the order of business.
(5) The Committee on Ethics, on resolutions
recommending action by the House with re-
spect to a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee of the House as
a result of an investigation by the committee
relating to the official conduct of such Mem-
ber, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee.
(b) A report filed from the floor as privileged
under paragraph (a) may be called up as a privi-
leged question by direction of the reporting com-
mittee, subject to any requirement concerning
its availability to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner under clause 4 or con-
cerning the timing of its consideration under
clause 6.
The origins of this provision appear as early as 1812, but it was in 1886
that the various provisions were consolidated in one rule. The rule was
amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), again
on February 2, 1951 (p. 883), and yet again by the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
[643]
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). On the latter date the privileges given to the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) on bills
for the forfeiture of land grants to railroad and other corporations, pre-
venting speculation in the public lands and reserving public lands for the
benefit of actual and bona fide settlers, and for the admission of new States,
to the Committee on Public Works (now Transportation and Infrastructure)
on bills authorizing the improvement of rivers and harbors, to the Com-
mittee on Veterans’ Affairs on general pension bills, and to the Committee
on Ways and Means on bills raising revenue, were eliminated from the
rule. In the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), the rule was
further amended to reinsert ‘‘contested elections’’ under the authority of
the Committee on House Administration, a matter inadvertently omitted
by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The rule was
amended in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113) to
permit joint resolutions continuing appropriations to be privileged if re-
ported after a certain date. In the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989,
p. 72), the rule was amended to include under the authority of the Com-
mittee on House Administration all matters relating to preservation and
availability of noncurrent House records. In the 104th, 106th, and 112th
Congresses, it was amended to reflect a change in committee name (sec.
202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47;
sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). In the 105th Congress it was
amended to update an archaic reference to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ (H. Res.
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XI; as part
of that recodification, former clause 9 of rule XVI (restating the privilege
of general appropriation bills) was deleted as obsolete (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Conforming changes to paragraph (a)(3) were effected in
the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(a) H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42;
sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
At the time these privileges originated all reports were made on the
floor, and often with great difficulty because of the pressure of business
(IV, 4621), and by giving this privilege the most important matters of busi-
ness were greatly expedited. In 1890 a rule was adopted providing that
reports should be made by filing with the Clerk, but privileged reports
must still be made from the floor (IV, 3146; VIII, 2230). A privileged report
from the Committee on Rules may be filed at any time when the House
is in session, including during special-order speeches (Oct. 14, 1986, p.
30861). Before the original adoption of the provisions contained in former
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI in the 92d Congress (current clause 4 of rule XIII)
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), the right of reporting at any time was
held to give the right of immediate consideration by the House (IV, 3131,
3132, 3142–3147; VIII, 2291, 2312). However, from that date until the
effective date of the provision of former clause 2(l)(6) (current clause 4
of this rule) on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), only the Committees on House Administration, Rules (subject
[644]
to the two-thirds vote requirement of clause 6 of this rule), and Standards

of Official Conduct (now Ethics) could call up a matter in the House for
immediate consideration as soon as the report was filed. Now only reports
from the Committee on Rules on rules, joint rules, and the order of business
under clause 6 of this rule; reports from the Committee on House Adminis-
tration on committee expense resolutions under clause 5(a) of this rule;
reports constituting questions of privilege (see generally Deschler, ch. 14,
§ 7.4, fn. 10, discussing ruling of Speaker Albert, July 13, 1971, on a re-
ported contempt); and reports on the official conduct of a Member (e.g.,
H. Res. 31, Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393) are exempt from the requirements of
former clause 2(l)(6) (current clause 4 of this rule) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Other committees enumerated in this clause may
still utilize the privilege after the report on the bill or resolution has been
available for at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day).
Once called up for consideration, the matter so reported remains privileged
until disposed of (IV, 3145). The House proceeds to the consideration of
privileged questions only on motion directed to be made by the several
committees reporting such questions (VIII, 2310). Privileged questions re-
ported adversely have the same status so far as their privilege is concerned
as those reported favorably (VI, 413; VIII, 2310).
The matters reported under the provisions of this clause are denomi-
§ 854. Privileged
nated ‘‘privileged reports’’ or ‘‘privileged questions,’’ and
reports defined. because the privilege relates merely to the order of busi-
ness under the rules, they must be distinguished from
‘‘questions of privilege’’ that relate to the safety or dignity of the House
itself defined in rule IX (III, 2718). Therefore, ‘‘questions of privilege’’ take
precedence over these matters that are privileged under the rules (III,
2426–2530; V, 6454; VIII, 3465).
Privileged questions interrupt the regular order of business as estab-
lished by former rule XXIV (current rule XIV), but when they are disposed
of the regular order continues on from the point of interruption (IV, 3070,
3071). The Speaker has declined to allow a call of committees to be inter-
rupted by a privileged report (IV, 3132). The presence of nonprivileged
matter destroys the privileged character of a bill (IV, 4622, 4624, 4633,
4640, 4643; VIII, 2289; Speaker Rayburn, May 21, 1958, pp. 9212–16),
or resolution (VIII, 2300), and when the text of a bill contains nonprivileged
matter, privilege may not be created by a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute not containing the nonprivileged matter (IV, 4623).
The privilege given by this clause to the Committee on Rules is confined
§ 855. The privilege of
to ‘‘action touching rules, joint rules, and order of busi-
individual committees ness’’ and this committee may not report as privileged
for reports. a concurrent resolution providing for a Senate inves-
tigating committee (VIII, 2255), or provide for the ap-
pointment of a clerk (VIII, 2256); but the privilege has been held to include
the right to report special orders for the consideration of individual bills
[645]
or classes of bills (V, 6774), or the consideration of a specified amendment

to a bill and prescribing a mode of considering such amendment (VIII,
2258). A special rule providing for the consideration of a bill is not invali-
dated by the fact that at the time the rule was reported, the bill was not
on the calendar (VIII, 2259; Speaker McCormack, Aug. 19, 1964, p. 20212).
The authority to report special orders of business includes authority to
recommend consideration of measures and amendments thereto the subject
of which might be separately pending before a standing committee (Apr.
15, 1986, p. 7531); to make in order the consideration of the text of an
introduced bill as original text in a reported bill (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29973);
to permit consideration of a previously unnumbered and unsponsored
measure that comes into existence by virtue of adoption by the House of
the special order (Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 16, 1986, p. 7610); to recommend
a ‘‘hereby’’ resolution, for example, that a concurrent resolution correcting
the enrollment of a bill be considered as adopted by the House upon the
adoption of the special order (Speaker Wright, May 4, 1988, p. 9865), or
that a Senate amendment pending at the Speaker’s table and otherwise
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole under clause 3 of rule
XXII (formerly clause 1 of rule XX) be ‘‘hereby’’ considered as adopted upon
adoption of the special order (Deschler, ch. 21, § 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p.
2500); to provide that an amendment containing an appropriation in viola-
tion of clause 4 of rule XXI (formerly clause 5(a)) be considered as adopted
in the House when the reported bill is under consideration (Feb. 24, 1993,
p. 3542); to provide that an amendment containing an appropriation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI be considered as adopted in the House
when the reported bill is under consideration (July 27, 1993, p. 17129);
and to provide that a nongermane amendment otherwise in violation of
clause 7 of rule XVI be considered as adopted in the House when the bill
is under consideration (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542; July 27, 1993, p. 17129).
The Committee on Rules also has reported as privileged a joint resolution
repealing a statutory joint rule (mandatory July adjournment, sec. 132
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946) (July 27, 1990, p. 20178).
The Committee on Rules has reported as privileged a special order of busi-
ness nearly identical to one previously rejected by the House, but held
not to constitute ‘‘another of the same substance’’ within the meaning of
the provisions in Jefferson’s Manual on reconsideration (§ 513, supra) be-
cause it provided a different scheme for general debate (July 27, 1993,
p. 17115).
A resolution consisting solely of privileged matter, albeit in two separate
jurisdictions empowered to report at any time under clause 4(a), has been
referred to a primary committee, reported therefrom as privileged, referred
sequentially, and reported as privileged from the sequential committee as
well (H. Res. 258, 102d Cong., Nov. 8, 1991, p. 30979; Nov. 19, 1991, p.
32903).
The right of the Committee on Appropriations to report at any time
is confined strictly to general appropriation bills (IV, 4629–4632; VIII,
[646]
2282–2284) and does not include appropriations for specific purposes (VIII,
2285). Before privilege was extended to continuing appropriation bills (in
1981), the rule was construed not to apply to resolutions extending appro-
priations (VIII, 2282–2284).
Reports from the Committee on House Administration authorizing ap-
propriations from the Treasury directly for compensation of employees (IV,
4645) or fixing the salaries of employees are not privileged (VIII, 2302).
As early as 1835 the necessity of giving appropriation bills precedence
§ 856. Privileged
became apparent, and in 1837 former clause 9 of rule
motion for XVI was adopted to establish that principle, but was
consideration of deleted in recodification as redundant to this rule.
revenue and Former clause 4(a) of rule XI was amended by the Com-
mittee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January
3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470) to eliminate the
authority of the Committee on Ways and Means to report as privileged
bills raising revenue, and former clause 9 of rule XVI was amended in
the 104th Congress (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077) to delete as
obsolete the reference to bills raising revenue (see § 853, supra). However,
the privilege to call up general appropriation bills in both rules was re-
tained. When both types of reports were privileged under the rule before
the 94th Congress, motions to consider revenue bills and appropriation
bills were of equal privilege (IV, 3075, 3076).
The motion may designate the particular appropriation bill to be consid-
ered (IV, 3074). The motion is privileged at any time after the approval
of the Journal (subject to relevant report and hearing availability require-
ments), but only if offered at the direction of the committee (July 23, 1993,
p. 16820). The motion is in order on District Mondays (VI, 716–718; VII,
876, 1123) and takes precedence over the motion to resolve into Committee
of the Whole House to consider the Private Calendar (IV, 3082–3085; VI,
719, 720). The motion could be made on a ‘‘suspension day’’ as on other
days (IV, 3080); and on consent days the call of the former Consent Cal-
endar (abolished in the 104th Congress) took precedence of the motion
(VII, 986). It may not be amended (VI, 52, 723), debated (VI, 716), laid
on the table, or indefinitely postponed (VI, 726), and the previous question
may not be demanded on it (IV, 3077–3079). Although highly privileged,
it may not take precedence over a motion to reconsider (IV, 3087), or a
motion to change the reference of a bill (VII, 2124). The motion is less
highly privileged than the motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a bill under former clause 3 of rule XXVII (current clause
2 of rule XV) (VII, 1011, 1016).
[647]
Privileged reports by the Committee on

Rules
6. (a) A report by the Committee on Rules on
§ 857. Reports from a rule, joint rule, or the order of
Committee on Rules.
business may not be called up for
consideration on the same day it is presented to
the House except—
(1) when so determined by a vote of two-
thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present;
(2) in the case of a resolution proposing only
to waive a requirement of clause 4 or of clause
8 of rule XXII concerning the availability of
reports; or
(3) during the last three days of a session of
Congress.
(b) Pending the consideration of a report by
the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or
the order of business, the Speaker may entertain
one motion that the House adjourn but may not
entertain any other dilatory motion until the re-
port shall have been disposed of.
(c) The Committee on Rules may not report a
rule or order that would prevent the motion to
recommit a bill or joint resolution from being
made as provided in clause 2(b) of rule XIX, in-
cluding a motion to recommit with instructions
to report back an amendment otherwise in
order, if offered by the Minority Leader or a des-
ignee, except with respect to a Senate bill or
joint resolution for which the text of a House-
passed measure has been substituted.
[648]
The Committee on Rules, ‘‘by uniform practice of the House,’’ exercised

the privilege of reporting at any time as early as 1888. The right to report
at any time is confined to privileged matters (VIII, 2255). This was probably
the survival of a practice that existed as early as 1853 of giving the privilege
of reporting at any time to this committee for a session (IV, 4650). In
1890 the committee was included among the committees whose reports
were privileged by rule. The present rule (formerly clause 4(b) of rule XI)
was adopted in 1892 (IV, 4621) and was amended on March 15, 1909.
Clause 6(a)(1) (former matter found in parentheses in clause 4(b) of rule
XI) was adopted January 18, 1924 (pp. 1139, 1141), and the rule was fur-
ther amended by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to limit
its application to reports from the Committee on Rules on rules, joint rules,
and orders of business. In the 94th Congress it was amended to permit
the immediate consideration of a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules waiving the two-hour layover requirement (H. Res. 868, Feb. 26,
1976, p. 4625). In the 104th Congress the provision was amended to pro-
hibit the Committee on Rules from recommending a rule or order that
would prevent a motion by the Minority Leader or a designee to recommit
a bill or joint resolution with instructions to report back an amendment
otherwise in order except in the case of a Senate bill or resolution for
which the text of a House-passed measure is being substituted (sec. 210,
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). In the 111th Congress paragraph (c) was
amended to remove a restriction on the authority of the committee with
regard to Calendar Wednesday business under clause 6 of rule XV (sec.
2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4(b) of
rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A conforming change to paragraph
(c) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 43), a technical change to paragraph (b) was effected in the 110th Con-
gress (sec. 505(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)),
and a technical change to paragraph (c) was effected in the 112th Congress
(sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). For rulings under the earlier
form of the rule, see § 859, infra.
Pursuant to this clause, a privileged report from the Committee on Rules
may be considered on the same legislative day only by a two-thirds vote,
but a report properly filed by the committee at any time before the con-
vening of the House on the next legislative day may be called up for imme-
diate consideration without the two-thirds vote requirement (Speaker Al-
bert, July 31, 1975, p. 26243), including a report filed during special-order
speeches after legislative business on that prior legislative day (Oct. 14,
1986, p. 30861), and if the House continues in session into a second cal-
endar day and then meets again that day, or convenes for two legislative
days on the same calendar day, any report filed on the first legislative
day may be called up on the second without the question of consideration
being raised (Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36755; Speaker Wright,
[649]
Oct. 29, 1987, p. 29937). This clause does not require that a privileged
resolution, and the report thereon, from the Committee on Rules be printed
before it is called up for consideration (Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 2, 1977, p.
3344).
In the case of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules,
the two-thirds vote requirement for consideration on the same day reported
does not apply. This clause provides for the immediate consideration of
a resolution from the Rules Committee waiving the requirement that copies
of reports and reported measures be available for three days before their
consideration, and waiving the requirement that copies of conference re-
ports or amendments reported from conference in disagreement be avail-
able for two hours before their consideration (see Aug. 10, 1984, p. 23978).
Although highly privileged, a report from the Committee on Rules yields
to questions of privilege (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), and is not
in order after the House has voted to go into Committee of the Whole
(V, 6781). Also a conference report has precedence over it, even when the
previous question and the yeas and nays have been ordered (V, 6449).
Formerly if a report from the Committee on Rules contained substantive
propositions, a separate vote could be had on each proposition (VIII, 2271,
2272, 2274, 3167); but these decisions were nullified by the adoption of
clause 5(b)(2) of rule XVI (formerly clause 6). A report from the Committee
on Rules takes precedence over a motion to consider a measure that is
‘‘highly privileged’’ pursuant to a statute enacted as an exercise in the
rulemaking authority of the House, acknowledging the constitutional au-
thority of the House to change its rules at any time (Speaker Wright, Mar.
11, 1987, p. 5403). Before the House adopts rules, the Speaker may recog-
nize a Member to offer for immediate consideration a special order pro-
viding for the consideration of a resolution adopting the rules (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 447; H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2007, p. l).
The Committee on Rules may report and call up as privileged resolutions
temporarily waiving or altering any rule of the House, including statutory
provisions enacted as an exercise of the House’s rulemaking authority that
would otherwise prohibit the consideration of a bill being made in order
by the resolution (Speaker Albert, Mar. 20, 1975, p. 7676; Mar. 24, 1975,
p. 8418), or that would otherwise establish an exclusive procedure for con-
sideration of a particular type of measure (Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 16, 1986,
p. 7610; Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403). No rule of the House
precludes the Committee on Rules from reporting a special order making
in order specified amendments that have not been preprinted as otherwise
required by an announced policy of that committee (Oct. 23, 1991, p. 28097).
No point of order lies against a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules that waives points of order against a measure or provides special
procedures for its consideration, if no law constituting a rule of the House
prohibits consideration of such a resolution (resolution providing for consid-
eration of a budget resolution, where a statute (P.L. 96–389) reaffirmed
congressional commitment to balanced Federal budgets but did not dictate
[650]
what legislation could be considered or otherwise constitute a rule of the

House) (June 10, 1982, p. 13353).
For a discussion of the Speaker’s announced policy with respect to enter-
taining unanimous-consent requests in the House to alter a special order
previously adopted by the House, see § 956, infra. For a discussion of the
unanimous-consent requests that may not be entertained in the Committee
of the Whole if their effect is to materially modify procedures required
by a special order adopted by the House, see § 993, infra.
In the later practice it has been held that the question of consideration
§ 858. Dilatory motions
may not be raised against a report from the Committee
not permitted. on Rules (V, 4961–4963; VIII, 2440, 2441). The clause
forbidding dilatory motions has been construed strictly
(V, 5740–5742), and in the later practice the following have been excluded:
(1) the motion to commit after the ordering of the previous question (V,
5593–5601; VIII, 2270, 2750; Feb. 22, 1984, p. 2965); (2) an appeal from
the Chair’s decision not to entertain the question of consideration or a
motion to lay the pending resolution on the table (V, 5739); and (3) the
motion to postpone to a day certain (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29972). A motion
to reconsider the vote on ordering the previous question has been held
not dilatory (V, 5739). Before debate has begun on a report from the Com-
mittee on Rules, a question of the privileges of the House takes precedence
(VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403). In the event that the previous question
is rejected on a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules, the
provisions of clause 6(b) prohibiting ‘‘dilatory’’ motions no longer strictly
apply; the resolution is subject to proper amendment, further debate, or
a motion to table or refer, and the Member who led the opposition to the
previous question is accorded priority in recognition (Oct. 19, 1966, pp.
27713, 27725–29; May 29, 1980, pp. 12667–78), subject to being preempted
by a preferential motion offered by another Member (Aug. 13, 1982, pp.
20969, 20975–78). The member of the Committee on Rules calling up a
privileged resolution on behalf of the committee may offer an amendment
thereto without specific authorization from the committee (Sept. 25, 1990,
p. 25575). A motion to table such a pending amendment is dilatory and
not in order under this provision, but the motion to reconsider the vote
on ordering the previous question on the rule and amendment thereto is
not (see V, 5739; Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575), and may be laid on the table
without carrying with it the resolution itself (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575).
Only one motion to adjourn is admissible during the consideration of a
report from the Committee on Rules (July 23, 1997, pp. 15366, 15374;
Mar. 11, 2008, p. l) and may be offered immediately after the reading
of the resolution (Mar. 20, 2002, pp. 3671, 3672) but may not be made
when another Member has the floor (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608). If the House
adjourns during the consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules,
further consideration of the report becomes the unfinished business on
the following day, and debate resumes from the point where interrupted
(Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22609; Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22719). The Chair has held
[651]
that a virtually consecutive invocation of former rule XXX (current clause

6 of rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and
on reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under this clause (or former
clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of rule XVI)) (July 31, 1996, p.
20693). In the 107th Congress clause 6 of rule XVII was amended to render
the Chair’s recognition for a motion on the use of charts completely discre-
tionary (see § 963, infra).
A motion to recommit a special rule from the Committee on Rules is
not in order (VIII, 2270, 2753).
From 1934 until the amendment to this provision in the 104th Congress
§ 859. Restrictions on
(sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), it was consist-
authority of ently held that the Committee on Rules could rec-
Committee on Rules. ommend a special order that limited, but did not totally
prohibit, a motion to recommit pending passage of a
bill or joint resolution, as by precluding the motion from containing instruc-
tions relating to specified amendments (Speaker Rainey, Jan. 11, 1934,
pp. 479–83 (sustained on appeal)); or by omitting to preserve the avail-
ability of amendatory instructions in the case that the bill is entirely rewrit-
ten by the adoption of a substitute made in order as original text (Speaker
Foley, June 4, 1991, p. 13170; Speaker Foley, Nov. 25, 1991, p. 34460);
or by expressly allowing only a simple (‘‘straight’’) motion to recommit
(without instructions) (Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29657 (sustained by tabling of
appeal); Feb. 26, 1992, p. 3441 (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 7,
1992, p. 10586 (sustained by tabling of appeal); June 16, 1992, p. 14973
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Nov. 21, 1993, p. 31544; Nov. 22, 1993,
p. 31815). A special order providing for consideration of a bill under suspen-
sion of the rules does not prevent a motion to recommit from being made
‘‘as provided in clause 4 of rule XVI,’’ i.e., after the previous question is
ordered on passage, a procedure not applicable to a motion to suspend
the rules (VIII, 2267; Speaker Foley, June 21, 1990, p. 15229). See Deschler,
ch. 21, § 26.11; see generally Deschler, ch. 23, § 25.
The caveat against including in a special order matter privileged to be
reported by another committee (Deschler, ch. 21, § 17.13) does not extend
to a ‘‘hereby’’ resolution (e.g., a special order providing that a concurrent
resolution correcting the enrollment of a bill within the jurisdiction of an-
other committee be considered as adopted by the House upon the adoption
of the special order), so long as not precluding the motion to recommit
a bill or joint resolution (Speaker Wright, May 4, 1988, p. 9865).
The Committee on Rules has reported special rules to dispose of Senate
amendments that have ordered the previous question to adoption without
intervening motion. At this stage the special order need not preserve (under
clause 6(c) of rule XIII) the motion to recommit (as provided in clause
2(b) of rule XIX) because the bill is not at the stage of initial passage.
For an illustrative list of such special rules, see House Practice, ch. 51,
§ 11. For an exchange of correspondence between the chair and ranking
[652]
minority member of the Rules Committee regarding this practice, see Janu-
ary 24, 1996, pp. 1228, 1229.
A special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules directing
the Clerk to refrain from certifying an enrollment pending the resolution
of a given contingency does not violate clause 2(d)(2) (Apr. 13, 2011, p.
l).
§ 860. Unfunded
mandates; Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658–658g) that imposes
congressional several requirements on committees with respect to
earmarks. ‘‘Federal mandates’’ (secs. 423, 424; 2 U.S.C. 658b,
658c), establishes points of order to permit separate
votes on whether to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d),
and permits a vote on the consideration of a rule or order waiving such
points of order (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). See § 1127, infra.
Clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a point of order against considerationof
certain measures for failure to disclose (or disclaim the presence of)certain
earmarks, tax benefits, and tariff benefits (paragraphs (a) and (b)),and
permits a vote on the question of consideration of a rule or orderwaiving
such points of order (paragraph (c)). See § 1068d, infra.
(d) The Committee on Rules shall present to

§ 861. Filing reports. the House reports concerning rules,
joint rules, and the order of busi-
ness, within three legislative days of the time
when they are ordered. If such a report is not
considered immediately, it shall be referred to
the calendar. If such a report on the calendar is
not called up by the member of the committee
who filed the report within seven legislative
days, any member of the committee may call it
up as a privileged question on the day after the
calendar day on which the member announces to
the House intention to do so. The Speaker shall
recognize a member of the committee who rises
for that purpose.
(e) An adverse report by the Committee on
Rules on a resolution proposing a special order
of business for the consideration of a public bill
[653]
or public joint resolution may be called up as a

privileged question by a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner on a day when it is in
order to consider a motion to discharge commit-
tees under clause 2 of rule XV.
was found in one paragraph, former paragraph (c) of clause 4 of rule XI
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). What is now paragraph (d) was initially
adopted January 18, 1924, and was amended on January 6, 1987 (H. Res.
5, p. 6) (requiring one calendar day’s notice before calling up a special
order eligible under the rule). A gender-based reference was eliminated
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). What is
now paragraph (e) was amended December 8, 1931 (VIII, 2268), January
3, 1949 (p. 16) (establishing the so-called ‘‘21-day rule’’), January 3, 1951
(p. 18) (abolishing the ‘‘21-day rule’’), January 4, 1965 (p. 24) (reestab-
lishing the ‘‘21-day rule’’), January 10, 1967 (H. Res. 7, p. 28) (abolishing
the ‘‘21-day rule’’). Technical changes to this provision were effected on
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). A special order
reported from the Committee on Rules and not called up within seven
legislative days may be called up by any member of that committee, includ-
ing a minority member (Nov. 13, 1979, p. 32185; May 6, 1982, p. 8905).
(f) If the House has adopted a resolution mak-

ing in order a motion to consider a
§ 862. Privileged
motion.
bill or resolution, and such a motion
has not been offered within seven calendar days
thereafter, such a motion shall be privileged if
offered by direction of all reporting committees
having initial jurisdiction of the bill or resolu-
tion.
This provision was contained in section 109 of the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and became part of the rules in the
92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified
2(l)(7) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In modern practice, this
subparagraph is normally inapplicable in light of clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
which provides for the House resolving into the Committee of the Whole
by declaration of the Speaker pursuant to a special order of business rather
than by adoption of a motion.
[654]
(g) Whenever the Committee on Rules reports

a resolution providing for the con-
§ 863. Specifying
waivers.
sideration of a measure, it shall (to
the maximum extent possible) specify in the res-
olution the object of any waiver of a point of
order against the measure or against its consid-
eration.
This provision (formerly clause 4(e) of rule XI) was adopted in this form
in the 104th Congress (sec. 211, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before
found in former clause 4(e) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Resolutions of inquiry
7. A report on a resolution of inquiry ad-
§ 864. Resolution of dressed to the head of an executive
inquiry.
department may be filed from the
floor as privileged. If such a resolution is not re-
ported to the House within 14 legislative days
after its introduction, a motion to discharge a
committee from its consideration shall be privi-
leged.
The House has exercised the right, from its earliest days, to call on the
President and heads of departments for information. The first rule on the
subject was adopted in 1820 for the purpose of securing greater care and
deliberation in the making of requests. The present form of rule, in its
essential features, dates from 1879 (III, 1856), although the time period
for a committee to report was extended from one week to 14 legislative
days in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before the House
former clause 5 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Resolutions of inquiry are usually simple rather than concurrent in form
(III, 1875), and are never joint resolutions (III, 1860).
§ 865. Forms of
resolutions of inquiry A resolution authorizing a committee to request infor-
and delivery thereof. mation has been treated as a resolution of inquiry (III,
1860). It has been considered proper to use the word
‘‘request’’ in asking for information from the President and ‘‘direct’’ in ad-
dressing the heads of departments (III, 1856, footnote, 1895). It is usual
for the House in calling on the President for information, especially with
relation to foreign affairs, to use the qualifying clause ‘‘if not incompatible
[655]
with the public interest’’ (II, 1547; III, 1896–1901; V, 5759; VI, 436). But
in some instances the House has made its inquiries of the President without
condition, and has even made the inquiry imperative (III, 1896–1901). Res-
olutions of inquiry are delivered under direction of the Clerk (III, 1879)
and are answered by subordinate officers of the Government either directly
or through the President (III, 1908–1910).
The practice of the House gives to resolutions of inquiry a privileged
§ 866. Privileged status
status. Thus, they are privileged for report and consid-
of resolutions of eration at any time after their reference to a committee
inquiry. (III, 1870; VI, 413, 414), but not before (III, 1857), and
are in order for consideration only on motion directed
to be made by the committee reporting the same (VI, 413; VIII, 2310).
They are privileged for consideration on ‘‘Suspension days’’ (except on Cal-
endar Wednesday (VII, 896–898)) and took precedence of the former Con-
sent Calendar (VI, 409) before its abolishment in the 104th Congress (H.
Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574). Only resolutions addressed to the Presi-
dent and the heads of the executive departments have the privilege (III,
1861–1864; VI, 406). To enjoy the privilege a resolution should call for
facts rather than opinions (III, 1872, 1873; VI, 413, 418–432; July 7, 1971,
pp. 23810–11), should not require investigations (III, 1872–1874; VI, 422,
427, 429, 432), and should not present a preamble (III, 1877, 1878; VI,
422, 427); but if a resolution on its face calls for facts, the Chair will not
investigate the probability of the existence of the facts called for (VI, 422).
However, a resolution inquiring for such facts as would inevitably require
the statement of an opinion to answer such inquiry is not privileged (Speak-
er Longworth, Feb. 11, 1926, p. 3805).
Questions of privilege (as distinguished from privileged questions) have
sometimes arisen in cases wherein the head of a department has declined
to respond to an inquiry and the House has desired to demand a further
answer (III, 1891; VI, 435); but a demand for a more complete reply (III,
1892) or a proposition to investigate as to whether or not there has been
a failure to respond may not be presented as involving the privileges of
the House (III, 1893).
Committees are required to report resolutions of inquiry back to the
§ 867. Discharge of a
House within a prescribed timeframe (formerly one
committee from a week, now 14 legislative days) (VIII, 3368; Speaker
resolution of inquiry. Rayburn, Feb. 9, 1950, p. 1755) exclusive of the day
of introduction and the day of discharge (III, 1858,
1859). If a committee refuses or neglects to report the resolution back,
the House may reach the resolution only by a motion to discharge the
committee (III, 1865). The ordinary motion to discharge a committee is
not privileged (VIII, 2316); but the practice of the House has given privilege
to the motion in cases of resolutions of inquiry (III, 1866–1870). And this
motion to discharge is privileged at the end of the time period, though
the resolution may have been delayed in reaching the committee (III, 1871).
The motion to discharge is not debatable (III, 1868; VI, 415). However,
[656]
Rule XIV, clause 1 § 868–§ 869
if the motion is agreed to, the resolution is debatable under the hour rule
unless the previous question is ordered (VI, 416, 417). If a committee re-
ports a privileged resolution of inquiry (favorably or adversely), it may
then be called up only by an authorized member of the reporting committee
and not by another Member of the House (VI, 413; VIII, 2310). The Member
calling up a privileged resolution of inquiry reported from committee is
recognized to control one hour of debate and may move to lay the resolution
on the table before or after that time (July 7, 1971, pp. 23807–10; Oct.
20, 1971, pp. 37055–57).
The President having failed to respond to a resolution of inquiry, the
§ 868. Resolutions of
House respectfully reminded him of the fact (III, 1890).
inquiry as related to In 1796 the House declared that its constitutional re-
the Executive. quests of the Executive for information need not be ac-
companied by a statement of purposes (II, 1509). As
to the kind of information that may be required, especially as to the papers
that may be demanded, there has been much discussion (III, 1700, 1738,
1888, 1902, 1903; VI, 402, 435). There have been several conflicts with
the Executive (II, 1534, 1561; III, 1884, 1885–1889, 1894) over demands
for papers and information, especially when the resolutions have called
for papers relating to foreign affairs (II, 1509–1513, 1518, 1519).
RULE XIV
ORDER AND PRIORITY OF BUSINESS
1. The daily order of business (unless varied

by the application of other rules and except for
the disposition of matters of higher precedence)
shall be as follows:
§ 869. The rule for the First. Prayer by the Chaplain.
order of business in
the House.
Second. Reading and approval of
the Journal, unless postponed
under clause 8 of rule XX.
Third. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Fourth. Correction of reference of public bills.
Fifth. Disposal of business on the Speaker’s
table as provided in clause 2.
Sixth. Unfinished business as provided in
clause 3.
[657]
§ 870 Rule XIV, clause 1
Seventh. The morning hour for the consider-

ation of bills called up by committees as pro-
vided in clause 4.
Eighth. Motions that the House resolve into
of the Union subject to clause 5.
Ninth. Orders of the day.
Originally the House had no rule prescribing an order of business, but
certain simple usages were gradually established by practice before the
first rule on the subject was adopted in 1811. The rule was amended fre-
quently to arrange the business to give the House as much freedom as
possible in selecting for consideration and completing the consideration
of the bills that it deems most important. The basic form of the rule has
been in place since 1890 (IV, 3056). The 98th Congress made a conforming
change to the second order of business relating to the postponement of
the vote on approval of the Journal (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The
104th Congress added the present third order of business respecting the
Pledge of Allegiance (sec. 218, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before
found in former clause 1 of rule XXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A correction to a cross reference was effected in the 107th Congress (sec.
2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26).
The Speaker does not entertain a point of no quorum before the prayer
is offered (VI, 663). Under clause 7 of rule XX, a point of no quorum may
not be entertained unless a question is pending (see § 1027, infra).
In response to serial parliamentary inquiries regarding the pledge of
allegiance to the flag, the Chair advised that (1) under clause 1 of rule
XIV, the third element of the daily order of business is the Pledge of Alle-
giance; (2) section 4 of title 4, United States Code, prescribes the text of
the pledge; (3) when the pledge is delivered as the third element of the
daily order of business, the Record reflects the pledge in its statutory form;
and (4) the statute prescribes the manner of delivery of the pledge (Apr.
27, 2004, pp. 7588, 7600).
This rule does not, however, bind the House to a daily routine because
the system of making certain important subjects privi-
§ 870. Privileged
interruptions of the leged (see clause 5 of rule XIII and rule XXII) permits
order of business in the interruption of the order of business by matters
the House. that, in fact, often supplant it entirely for days at a
time. In the 106th Congress the recodification acknowl-
edged in the parenthetical of this clause that the prescribed daily order
of business could be superseded by operation of other rules (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). But when the order of business is interrupted by
a privileged matter, the business in order proceeds from the place of inter-
[658]
Rule XIV, clause 1 § 871
ruption (IV, 3070, 3071) unless the House adjourns. After an adjournment,
the House starts anew with the prayer. Although privileged matters may
interrupt the order of business, they may do so only with the consent of
a majority of the House, expressed as to appropriation bills by the vote
on resolving into Committee of the Whole to consider such bills, and as
to matters like conference reports, questions of privilege, etc., by raising
and voting on the question of consideration. The only exceptions to the
principle that a majority may prevent interruption are contained in clauses
5 and 7 of rule XV, providing for a call of the Private Calendar on the
first Tuesday of each month and a call of committees on Wednesdays. By
this combination of an order of business with privileged interruptions the
House gives precedence to its most important business without at the same
time losing the power by majority vote to go to any other bills on its cal-
endars.
The privileged matters that may interrupt the order
§ 871. The privileged
matters that may
of business include:
interrupt the order of (1) General appropriation bills (clause 5 of rule XIII;
business. IV, 3072).
(2) Conference reports (clause 7(a) of rule XXII; V,
6443) and motions to discharge or instruct conferees (clause 7(c) of rule
XXII).
(3) Special orders reported by the Committee on Rules for consideration
by the House (clause 5 of rule XIII; IV, 3070–3076, 4621).
(4) Consideration of amendments between the Houses after disagreement
(IV, 3149, 3150).
(5) Questions of privilege (rule IX; III, 2521).
(6) Privileged bills reported under the right to report at any time (clauses
5 and 7 of rule XIII; IV, 3142–3144, 4621).
(7) Call of committees on Wednesdays for bills on House and Union Cal-
endars (clause 6 of rule XV).
(8) Private business on Tuesday (clause 5 of rule XV).
(9) Motions on the second and fourth Mondays of the month to discharge
committees on public bills and resolutions (clause 2 of rule XV), and consid-
eration of District of Columbia business (clause 4 of rule XV; IV, 3304).
(10) Motions to suspend the rules and pass bills out of the regular order
(clause 1 of rule XV; V, 6790).
(11) Bills coming over from a previous day with the previous question
ordered (V, 5510–5517).
(12) Bills returned with the objections of the President (IV, 3534–3536).
(13) Motions to send a bill to conference (under clause 1 of rule XXII;
Aug. 1, 1972, p. 26153).
In addition to these matters, the House by practice permits its order
of business to be interrupted, at the discretion of the Speaker, for the
reception of messages (V, 6602). Before the 104th Congress, addressing
the House out of order by unanimous consent, the Speaker announced
that on at least two subsequent days he would recognize designated Mem-
[659]
§ 872–§ 873 Rule XIV, clause 2
bers after approval of the Journal to lead the House in the Pledge of Alle-
giance to the Flag (Speaker Wright, Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23310). Requests
of Members for leaves of absence are in practice put before the House
at the time of adjournment (IV, 3151).
When the House has no rule establishing an order of business, as at
§ 872. The interruption
the beginning of a session before the adoption of rules,
of the order of it is in order for any Member who is recognized by the
business by the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of busi-
request for unanimous ness without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060).
consent.
But after the adoption of the rule for the order of busi-
ness, interruptions are confined to matters privileged to interrupt or to
cases wherein the House gives unanimous consent for an interruption. A
request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in effect a request to
suspend the order of business temporarily (IV, 3059). Therefore any Mem-
ber, including the Chair, may object, or reserve the right to object and
inquire, for example, about the reasons for the request, or demand the
‘‘regular order’’ (IV, 3058). Debate under a reservation of objection proceeds
at the sufferance of the House and may not continue after a demand for
the regular order (see, e.g., Speaker Foley, Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32128; Dec.
15, 1995, p. 37142). A Member objecting to a unanimous-consent request
or demanding the regular order when another has reserved the right to
object must stand to be observed by the Chair (Nov. 7, 1991, p. 30633;
June 23, 1992, p. 15703). The Speaker, however, usually signifies objection
by declining to put the request of the Member, thus saving the time of
the House. The Speaker’s guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent
requests for consideration of unreported measures are issued pursuant to
clause 2 of rule XVII and are discussed in § 956, infra. The request for
unanimous consent began to be used about 1832 when the House first
felt a pressure of business and the necessity of adhering to a fixed order
(IV, 3155–3159). In 1909, by the adoption of former clause 4 of rule XIII,
a Consent Calendar was established, which was abolished in the 104th
Congress (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574). For discussion of unani-
mous-consent requests and reservations of objections, see § 956, infra.
Unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a measure in the
House does not preclude a demand for a record vote when the Chair puts
the question on final passage, because it merely permits consideration of
a matter not otherwise privileged (Dec. 16, 1987, p. 35816).
2. Business on the Speaker’s table shall be

§ 873. Disposal of disposed of as follows:
business on the
Speaker’s table.
(a) Messages from the President shall be re-

ferred to the appropriate committees without
debate.
[660]
Rule XIV, clause 2 § 874
(b) Communications addressed to the House,

including reports and communications from
heads of departments and bills, resolutions,
and messages from the Senate, may be re-
ferred to the appropriate committees in the
same manner and with the same right of cor-
rection as public bills and public resolutions
presented by Members, Delegates, or the Resi-
dent Commissioner.
(c) Motions to dispose of Senate amend-
ments on the Speaker’s table may be enter-
tained as provided in clauses 1, 2, and 4 of
rule XXII.
(d) Senate bills and resolutions substantially
the same as House measures already favor-
ably reported and not required to be consid-
ered in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union may be disposed of by
motion. Such a motion shall be privileged if of-
fered by direction of all reporting committees
having initial jurisdiction of the House meas-
ure.
A rule to govern disposition of business on the Speaker’s table (to be
distinguished from the table of the House, which is the Clerk’s table) was
adopted in 1832. In 1880 and 1885 efforts were made to so modify the
rule as to prevent delays in business on the Speaker’s table, but it was
not until 1890 that the present rule was adopted (IV, 3089). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision and clause
2 of rule XXII occupied a single clause (formerly clause 2 of rule XXIV)
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Such portions of messages from the Senate as require action by the
House, all messages from the President except those
§ 874. Matters on
Speaker’s table for transmitting objections to bills (IV, 3534–3536), and all
action by the House communications and reports from the heads of depart-
or by the Speaker ments go to the Speaker’s table when received, to be
alone.
disposed of under this rule. Simple resolutions of the
Senate that do not require any action by the House are not referred (VII,
[661]
§ 874 Rule XIV, clause 2
1048). All of the President’s messages are referred. Such portions of Senate
messages (House bills with Senate amendments) that do not require consid-
eration in Committee of the Whole may be laid before the House for action.
Communications from the President, other than messages; all portions of
Senate messages requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole (IV,
3101); and Senate bills of all kinds (with the exception noted in the rule)
may be referred to the appropriate standing committees under direction
of the Speaker without action by the House (IV, 3107, 3111; VI, 727). Under
clause 2 of former rule XXIV (current rule XIV), the Speaker may tempo-
rarily retain custody of an executive communication addressed to the
Speaker (or may pursuant to former clause 1 of rule IV (current clause
3(a) of rule II) order the Sergeant-at-Arms to assume custody) pending
House disposition of a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
relating to a referral of the communication to committee (Sept. 9, 1998,
p. 19769).
A House bill returned with Senate amendments involving a new matter
of appropriation, whether with or without a request for a conference, may
be referred directly to a standing committee (VI, 731), and on being re-
ported therefrom is referred directly to the Committee of the Whole (IV,
3094, 3095, 3108–3110). However, the usual practice is to take the bill
from the Speaker’s table and concur, concur with an amendment, or send
to conference by unanimous consent, special rule, or suspension of the rules
(VI, 732) (although a motion to send to conference may be privileged under
clause 1 of rule XXII). The Speaker’s authority under this clause includes
the discretionary authority to refer from the Speaker’s table Senate amend-
ments to House-passed bills, to standing committees, under any conditions
permitted under current clause 2 of rule XII (formerly clause 5 of rule
X) for referral of introduced bills; the Speaker may for example impose
a time limitation for consideration only of a portion of the Senate amend-
ment, not germane to the original House bill, by the standing committee
with subject-matter jurisdiction, without referring the remainder of the
Senate amendment to the House committee with jurisdiction over the origi-
nal House bill (Speaker O’Neill, H.R. 31, Mar. 26, 1981, p. 5397). The
Speaker announced his policy regarding referral of nongermane Senate
amendments to committee (Jan. 3, 1983, p. 54; Jan. 6, 1987, p. 21); and
his policy regarding recognition for unanimous-consent requests to dispose
of Senate amendments at the Speaker’s table (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194;
Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2676) discussed in § 956, infra. A Senate bill to come before
the House directly from the table must conform to the conditions prescribed
by the rule (IV, 3098, 3099; VI, 727, 734, 737), and must have come to
the House after and not before the House bill ‘‘substantially the same’’
and not involving an expenditure (IV, 3103) has been placed on the House
Calendar (IV, 3096; VI, 727, 736, 738) or Private Calendar (IV, 3102). In
the event the House bill has passed before the Senate bill is received,
the Senate bill may nevertheless be disposed of on motion directed by the
committee (VI, 734, 735). The House bill must be correctly on the House
[662]
Calendar (VI, 736). In determining whether the House bill is substantially

the same as the Senate bill, amendments recommended by the House com-
mittee must be considered (VI, 734, 736). The rule applies to private as
well as to public Senate bills (IV, 3101), and to concurrent resolutions
as well as to bills (IV, 3097). Although a committee must authorize the
calling up of the Senate bill (VI, 739), the actual motion need not be made
by a member of the committee (IV, 3100). The authority of a committee
to call up a bill must be given at a formal meeting of the committee (VIII,
2211, 2212, 2222).
A message of the President on the Speaker’s table is regularly laid before
§ 875. Reference of
the House only at the time prescribed by the order of
President’s messages business (V, 6635–6638). Although it is always read in
from the Speaker’s full and entered on the Journal and the Congressional
table. Record (V, 6963), the accompanying documents are not
read on demand of a Member or entered in the Journal
or Record (V, 5267–5271; VII, 1108). The annual message of the President
is usually referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union by the House on motion (V, 6631). In the earlier practice it
was distributed to appropriate standing committees by resolutions reported
from the Committee on Ways and Means (V, 6621, 6622) but since the
first session of the 64th Congress the practice has been discontinued (VIII,
3350). A portion of the annual message has been referred directly to a
select committee (V, 6628). A message other than an annual message is
usually referred directly to a standing committee by direction of the Speak-
er (IV, 4053; VIII, 3346), but may be referred by the House itself on motion
by a Member (V, 6631; VIII, 3348), and such motion is privileged (VIII,
3348). This reference may be to a select as well as to a standing committee
(V, 6633, 6634).
3. Consideration of unfinished business in

which the House may have been en-
§ 876. Unfinished
business.
gaged at an adjournment, except
business in the morning hour and proceedings
postponed under clause 8 of rule XX, shall be re-
sumed as soon as the business on the Speaker’s
table is finished, and at the same time each day
thereafter until disposed of. The consideration of
all other unfinished business shall be resumed
whenever the class of business to which it be-
longs shall be in order under the rules.
The first rule relating to unfinished business was adopted in 1794.
Changes were made in 1860 and 1880, but the rule finally became un-
[663]
satisfactory, because of delays caused by it, and in 1890 the present form
was adopted (IV, 3112). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXIV (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction to a cross reference was
effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26).
This clause should be understood in light of clause 8 of rule XX, which
§ 877. Construction of
permits the Chair to postpone record votes on certain
rule as to unfinished questions to a designated time within two legislative
business. days (see § 1030, infra). The ‘‘business in which the
House may be engaged at an adjournment’’ means, lit-
erally, business in the House, as distinguished from the Committee of the
Whole; and it further means business in which the House is engaged in
its general legislative time, as distinguished from the special periods set
aside for classes of business, like the morning hour for calls of committee,
Tuesdays for private bills, etc. In general, all business unfinished in the
general legislative time goes over as unfinished business under the rule,
but there are a few exceptions. Thus, a motion relating to the order of
business does not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day, even
though the yeas and nays may have been ordered on it (IV, 3114). The
question of consideration, also, when not disposed of at an adjournment,
does not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948),
but may be again raised on a subsequent day when the matter is again
called up as unfinished business (VIII, 2438). If the House adjourns during
the consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules, further consid-
eration of the report becomes the unfinished business on the following
day, and debate resumes from the point where interrupted (Sept. 27, 1993,
p. 22609; Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22719). When the House adjourns on the second
legislative day after postponement of a question under clause 8 of rule
XX without resuming proceedings thereon, the question remains unfin-
ished business on the next legislative day (Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20922; Oct.
2, 1997, p. 20991). When the House adjourns while a motion to instruct
under clause 7(c) of rule XXII is pending, the motion to instruct becomes
unfinished business on the next day and does not need to be renoticed
(Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20894).
When the House adjourns before voting on a proposition on which the
§ 878. Effect of
previous question has been ordered, either directly or
previous question. by the terms of a special order (IV, 3185), the matter
comes up the next day as unfinished business (V, 5510–
5517; VIII, 2691; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18187). If several bills come over in
this situation, they have precedence in the order in which the several mo-
tions for the previous question were made (V, 5518). When the previous
question is ordered on a bill undisposed of at adjournment on Friday, the
bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day (VIII, 2694). A
bill going over from Calendar Wednesday with the previous question or-
dered on it should be disposed of on the next legislative day (VII, 967).
A bill coming over from a preceding day with the previous question ordered
[664]
was of equal privilege with business on the former Consent Calendar (VII,
990).
The rule excepts by its terms certain classes of business that are consid-
§ 879. Business
ered in periods set apart for classes of business, viz:
unfinished in periods (a) Bills considered in the morning hour and on Cal-
set apart for classes of endar Wednesday for the call of committees.
business. (b) Bills in Committee of the Whole.
(c) Private bills considered on Tuesdays.
(d) District of Columbia bills.
(e) Bills brought up under the rule setting apart days for motions to
suspend the rules, motions to discharge committees, and bills under consid-
eration after a committee has been discharged.
A bill brought up in the morning hour and undisposed of when the call
ceases for the day remains as unfinished business in the morning hour
(IV, 3113, 3120), i.e., it is considered when the House next goes to a call
of committees. Business unfinished when the Committee of the Whole rises
remains unfinished, to be considered first in order when the House next
goes into Committee of the Whole to consider that business (IV, 4735,
4736).
On District of Columbia day business unfinished on the preceding Dis-
trict day is in order for consideration, but does not come before the House
unless called up (IV, 3307; VII, 879). Unless postponed under clause 8
of rule XX, a motion to suspend the rules that is undisposed of on one
suspension day goes over as unfinished business to the next suspension
day, individual motions going over to a committee day, and vice versa (V,
6814–6816; VII, 1005; VIII, 3411, 3412).
4. After the unfinished business has been dis-

posed of, the Speaker shall call each
§ 880. The morning
hour for the call of
committees. standing committee in regular order
and then select committees. Each
committee when named may call up for consid-
eration a bill or resolution reported by it on a
previous day and on the House Calendar. If the
Speaker does not complete the call of the com-
mittees before the House passes to other busi-
ness, the next call shall resume at the point it
left off, giving preference to the last bill or reso-
lution under consideration. A committee that
has occupied the call for two days may not call
[665]
up another bill or resolution until the other com-

mittees have been called in their turn.
The morning hour is one of the oldest devices of the rules for devoting
an early portion of the session to a specific class of business. Until 1885
it was the hour for the reception of reports from committees. In 1890 it
was provided that reports should be filed with the Clerk, and the morning
hour was by this rule devoted to a call of committees for the consideration
of House Calendar bills (IV, 3181). Since the adoption of the Calendar
Wednesday rule (clause 6 of rule XV), the morning hour has been used
but rarely. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Originally the morning hour was a fixed period of 60 minutes (IV, 3118);
but under the present rule it does not terminate until
§ 881. Procedure in the
morning hour. the call is exhausted or until the House adjourns (IV,
3119), unless the House on motion made at the end
of 60 minutes votes to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union (clause 5 of rule XIV; IV, 3134), or unless other privileged
matter intervenes (IV, 3131, 3132). Before the expiration of the 60 minutes
the Speaker has declined to permit the call to be interrupted by a privileged
report (IV, 3132) or by unanimous consent (IV, 3130). Where the business
for which the call was interrupted is concluded, the call is resumed unless
there be other interrupting business or the House adjourns (IV, 3133).
A bill once brought up on the call continues before the House in that order
of business until disposed of (IV, 3120), unless withdrawn by authority
of the committee before action that puts it in possession of the House (IV,
3129); and may not be made a special order for a future day by a motion
to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164). In order to be called up in this
order a bill must properly be on the House Calendar (IV, 3122–3126), and
a bill on the Union Calendar may not be brought up on call of committees
under this clause (VI, 753). If the authority of the committee to call up
a bill is disputed, the Chair does not consider it a duty to decide the ques-
tion (IV, 3127) but may base the decision on statements from the chair
and other members of the committee (IV, 3128).
5. After consideration of bills or resolutions

§ 882. Interruption of under clause 4 for one hour, it shall
the call of committees
by motion to go into be in order, pending consideration
Committee of the
Whole House on the
thereof, to entertain a motion that
state of the Union. the House resolve into the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union or, when authorized by a com-
mittee, that the House resolve into the Com-
[666]
mittee of the Whole House on the state of the

Union to consider a particular bill. Such a mo-
tion shall be subject to only one amendment des-
ignating another bill. If such a motion is decided
in the negative, another such motion may not be
considered until the matter that was pending
when such motion was offered is disposed of.
This portion of the rule was adopted in 1890 as part of the plan for
enabling the House at will to go at any time to any public bill on its cal-
endars (IV, 3134). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Con-
gress, this provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXIV (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The phrase ‘‘one hour’’ has been interpreted to include a shorter time
in the case that the call of committees shall have ex-
the motion to go into hausted itself before the expiration of one hour (IV,
Committee of the 3135); but not otherwise (IV, 3141). After the House
Whole at the end of has been in Committee of the Whole under this order
one hour.
and has risen and reported, and the report has been
acted on by the House, other motions to go into Committee to consider
other bills are in order (IV, 3136). The motion to go into Committee gen-
erally may be made by the individual Member (IV, 3138), but when it
is proposed to designate a particular bill the Member must have the author-
ity of a committee (IV, 3138). The amendment to the motion to consider
a particular bill must refer to a bill on the Union Calendar (IV, 3139).
This order of business is used entirely for nonprivileged bills and is not
used in the House for consideration of bills in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union if otherwise privileged under clause 5
of rule XIII.
6. All questions relating to the priority of busi-

§ 884. Decision of ness shall be decided by a majority
questions as to
priority of business without debate.
without debate.
This provision was adopted in 1803 to prevent obstructive debate (IV,

provision was found in former rule XXV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The question of consideration under clause 3 of rule XVI and the motion
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole are not
debatable (VIII, 2447; IV, 3062, 3063).
This rule may not be invoked to establish an order of business or to
inhibit the Speaker’s power of recognition (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975,
[667]
§ 885 Rule XV, clause 1
p. 26249). It has been held that appeals from decisions of the Chair as
to priority of business are not debatable under this rule (V, 6952).
RULE XV
BUSINESS IN ORDER ON SPECIAL DAYS
Suspensions
1. (a) A rule may not be suspended except by
§ 885. Motions to a vote of two-thirds of the Members
suspend the rules.
voting, a quorum being present.
The Speaker may not entertain a motion that
the House suspend the rules except on Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last
six days of a session of Congress.
This provision (formerly clause 1 of rule XXVII) developed from a rule
adopted in 1794, which provided that no rule should be rescinded without
one day’s notice. In 1822 a paragraph was added that no rule should be
suspended except by a two-thirds vote. In 1828 it was amended to provide
that the order of business, as established by the rules, should not be
changed except by a two-thirds vote. Originally contemplating motions to
suspend the rules on any day, the rule was amended in 1847 to restrict
the motion to Mondays of each week, and, in 1880, to the first and third
Mondays of each month. In 1874 the old limit of 10 days at the end of
the session was reduced to six days. In the 93d Congress, the rule was
amended to permit motions to suspend the rules on the first and third
Mondays and on the Tuesdays immediately following those days and to
eliminate the distinction between days on which committees and individ-
uals had preference (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26, 27). In the 95th Con-
gress, the rule was amended to permit such motions on every Monday
and Tuesday (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, 95th Cong., pp. 53–70). During the
first session of the 108th Congress, the House authorized the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules on Wednesdays
through the second Wednesday in April as though under this clause (sec.
3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11). That authority was extended by unani-
mous consent through the last Wednesday in June (Apr. 30, 2003, p. 10063)
and by resolution through the entire 108th Congress (H. Res. 297, June
26, 2003, p. 16275). In the 109th Congress, the House amended the rule
to permit motions to suspend the rules every Wednesday (sec. 2(e), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXVII
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[668]
Rule XV, clause 1 § 886
Originally, when the House was operating under the older rules for the
§ 886. Nature of the
order of business, the motion was used to establish a
motion to suspend the special order of business for the consideration of a par-
rules. ticular measure (IV, 3152, 3162; V, 6852). In 1890, the
House adopted rules for the order of business that en-
abled the House on any day to consider public bills on its calendars. About
the same time, the House perfected the process of establishing a special
order of business by a majority vote through a report from the Committee
on Rules (IV, 3169). As a result of these changes, the use of the motion
to suspend gradually changed from one that established a special order
of business to one that passes or adopts a measure (V, 6790, 6846, 6847).
The latter motion suspends all rules inconsistent with its purposes, includ-
ing a rule requiring that a recess be taken (V, 5752) or that a quorum
be present when a bill is reported from committee (Sept. 22, 1992, p. 26932).
Although the normal use of the motion is to pass or adopt a noncontrover-
sial measure, the motion may also be used to change or suspend a rule
or order that is susceptible to suspension or to suspend the parliamentary
law of Jefferson’s Manual (V, 6796, 6862). The rules forbid the Speaker
to entertain a motion to suspend the rules relating to the privilege of the
floor (clause 2(b) of rule IV; V, 7283; VIII, 3634), the use of the Hall of
the House (clause 2(b) of rule IV; V, 7270), or the introduction of persons
in the galleries (clause 7 of rule XVII; VI, 197).
The motion to suspend may include a series of actions, such as the dis-
charge of a committee from consideration of a bill and the passage of it
(V, 6850), the reconsideration of the vote passing a bill, amendment of
it, and passage again (V, 6849), the permission for a committee to report
several bills (V, 6857), an order to the Clerk to incorporate in the engross-
ment of a general appropriation bill a provision not otherwise in order
(IV, 3845), an authorization to the House to entertain a specified motion
to suspend the rules on a future day not a suspension day (IV, 3845),
a motion to take a bill (V, 6288; VIII, 3425) or a motion to reconsider,
from the table (V, 5640). A motion to suspend may provide for agreeing
to a conference report that has been ruled out of order by the Speaker
(Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41860) or may provide for passage of a bill that consists
of the text of two bills previously passed by the House (Sept. 19, 2000,
p. 18510). One motion to suspend the rules having been rejected, the Speak-
er may recognize for a similar motion (Dec. 21, 1973, pp. 43270–81).
A motion to suspend the rules may provide for the passage of a bill
regardless of whether it has been reported by committee, referred to a
calendar, or even previously introduced (VIII, 3421; July 16, 1996, p.
17228). It may include an amendment without the formality of committee
approval (June 22, 1992, p. 15617). Copies of reports on bills considered
under suspension are not required to be available in advance. No advance
notice to Members of bills to be called up under suspension of the rules
is required (Mar. 20, 1978, p. 7535; Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1895) including to
the sponsor (July 30, 2010, p. l). However, if a special rule requires that
[669]
§ 886a–§ 887 Rule XV, clause 1
the object of a motion to suspend the rules be announced on the floor at

least one hour before the Chair’s entertaining the motion, unanimous con-
sent is required to permit the Chair to entertain the motion before that
time (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25765, 25774).
The motion that the House ‘‘suspend the rules and pass [or adopt]’’ a
measure is not subject to the demand for a division
of the motion to of the question, either as to the two branches of the
suspend the rules. motion or as to distinct substantive propositions in the
subject of the motion (V, 6141–6143). The motion may
not be amended (V, 5322, 5405, 6858; Deschler, ch. 21, § 14.6; Apr. 11,
2000, p. 5206), and the power to withdraw and modify the motion rests
with its proponent (May 10, 2006, p. 7807). The motion may not be post-
poned (V, 5322) or laid on the table (V, 5405). The motion to reconsider
may not be applied to a negative vote on the motion (V, 5645, 5646; VIII,
2781; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25797), although it may be applied to an affirmative
vote (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25796). The motion to refer may not be applied
to the bill that it is proposed to pass under suspension of the rules (V,
6860). Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain one
motion to adjourn pending a motion to suspend the rules but may not
entertain any other motion until the vote is taken on the motion to suspend
the rules.
Some older precedents indicate that the right of a Member to have read
the paper on which the Member is called to vote is not changed by the
fact that the procedure is by suspension of the rules (V, 5277; VIII, 3400),
and in earlier instances the separate motion to suspend the rules and dis-
pense with reading of pending measures was held in order (V, 5278–84).
However, under the modern practice, only the motion to suspend the rules
is itself read. The Clerk reports the title of the bill and a motion that
the measure be read in full is not in order (July 30, 2010, p. l). Amend-
ments included in the motion are not reported separately. Where a motion
to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution that provided for concurring
in a Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of a
bill introduced in the House, the Speaker ruled that the reading of the
resolution itself was sufficient and that it could be re-read to the House
only by unanimous consent (Dec. 21, 1973, pp. 43251–63).
For a discussion of debate on the motion and the Chair’s recognition
of a Member to control time in opposition to the motion, see § 891, infra.
In the early practice, when the motion to suspend the rules was used
to enable a matter to be taken up for consideration out
the motion to suspend of order, it was not admitted when a subject was al-
the rules. ready before the House (V, 5278, 6836, 6837, 6852,
6853). However, a motion to suspend the rules was in
order to dispense with the reading of a pending measure (V, 5278). A bill
taken up under this early practice might be amended by the House (V,
6842, 6856) or withdrawn by the mover, in which case another Member
might not present it (V, 6854, 6855).
[670]
In the later practice, if the motion includes both suspension of the rules
and action on the subject, it is admitted even though another matter is
pending (V, 6834), the yeas and nays are demanded on another privileged
motion (V, 6835), or the previous question has been ordered or moved on
another matter (V, 6827, 6831–6833; VIII, 3418; Sept. 17, 1990, p. 24695).
Earlier rulings did not permit a motion to suspend the rules to permit
a vote to be taken in gross on a series of pending Senate amendments
(V, 6828, 6830). The motion to suspend the rules has been ruled out of
order when the House is considering a bill under a special order (V, 6838)
or when a question of privilege under rule IX is before the House (V, 6825,
6826; VI, 553, 565), and yields to such questions of privilege (III, 2553;
VI, 565). The motion to suspend the rules has been held of equal privilege
with the motion to instruct conferees under former clause 1(c) of rule
XXVIII (current clause 7(c) of rule XXII), which is of the highest privilege
(Mar. 1, 1988, pp. 2749, 2751, 2754). A motion to suspend the rules and
approve the Journal was held in order, although the Journal had not been
read and the highly privileged motion to fix the day to which the House
should adjourn was pending (IV, 2758). Moreover, in the absence of a mo-
tion to suspend, the ordinary motions relating to business of the House
may be made on suspension days as on other days (IV, 3080).
The motion to suspend the rules may be made on days other than suspen-
sion days by unanimous consent (V, 6795) or by adoption of a resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules. On suspension days the motion to
suspend the rules has been admitted at the discretion of the Speaker since
1881 (V, 6791–6794, 6845; VIII, 3402–3404; Nov. 2, 2009, p. l), and no
appeal may be taken from the Speaker’s denial of recognition (II, 1425).
Authorization by a committee is not required for the Speaker to recognize
§ 888. Individual and
for a motion to suspend the rules (VIII, 3410), including
committee motions to a motion to suspend the rules and pass a measure ‘‘as
suspend the rules. amended’’ (June 22, 1992, p. 15617).
Before the 93d Congress, the rule gave to individuals preference on the
first Monday of the month for making motions to suspend the rules, and
preference on the third Mondays for committees to make the motion (V,
6790). If on a committee day an individual motion was made and seconded,
it was then too late to make a point of order (V, 6809). In rare instances,
under earlier House practice, the Speaker called the committees in regular
order for motions to suspend the rules, but this method was not required
(V, 6810, 6811). The earlier practice also required a motion to be formally
and specifically authorized by a committee (V, 6805–6807), including spe-
cific authorization to include an amendment (V, 6812); but after the motion
was seconded and debate had begun it was too late to raise a question
as to the authorization (V, 6808). The committee could not present a bill
that had not been referred to it (V, 6813) or was not within its jurisdiction
(V, 6848).
[671]
§ 889–§ 890 Rule XV, clause 1
Before the 102d Congress, certain motions to suspend the rules were
§ 889. The second of
required to be seconded, if demanded, by a majority
the motion to suspend by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from
the rules. the rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). The requirement
for a second was adopted in 1874, was rescinded two
years later, but was again adopted in 1880. The object of it was to prevent
consumption of the time of the House by forcing consideration of undesir-
able propositions (V, 6797). The requirement (formerly clause 2 of rule
XXVII) was amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp.
7–16) so that a second was not required where printed copies of the pro-
posed measure were available. The constitutional right of a Member to
demand the yeas and nays, or the right of a Member under clause 1(b)
of rule XX to demand a recorded vote, did not exist on the question of
ordering a second under the former clause 2 of rule XXVII, which only
permitted the ordering of a second by tellers if a quorum was present
(V, 6032–6036; VIII, 3109; Dec. 16, 1981, p. 31851). The fact that a majority
of the Members of the House did not pass between the tellers on the ques-
tion of ordering a second did not conclusively show that a quorum was
not present in the Chamber, and the Speaker could count the House to
determine whether a quorum was actually present (Dec. 16, 1981, p.
31851). However, where a quorum failed on the vote for a second, under
clause 6 of rule XX the yeas and nays were ordered (IV, 3053–3055; Dec.
21, 1973, pp. 43251–63).
A motion to suspend the rules may be withdrawn at any time before
§ 889a. Withdrawal of
the Chair puts the question and a voice vote is taken
motion. thereon (V, 6840, 6844; VIII, 3405, 3419). The motion
may be withdrawn by unanimous consent, even after
the Speaker has put the question on its adoption and postponed further
proceedings (Deschler, ch 21 § 13.23).
(b) Pending a motion that the House suspend

the rules, the Speaker may enter-
§ 890. Dilatory motions
pending motions to
tain one motion that the House ad-
suspend rules.
journ but may not entertain any

other motion until the vote is taken on the sus-
pension.
This provision (formerly clause 8 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1868 (V,
5743), and amended in 1911 (VIII, 2823). A technical change was effected
in the 110th Congress (sec. 505(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted
Jan. 5, 2007)). A motion for a recess (V, 5748–5751) and for a call of the
House when there was no doubt of the presence of a quorum (V, 5747)
were held to be dilatory motions within the meaning of the rule. But where
a motion to suspend the rules has been made and, after one motion to
[672]
adjourn has been acted on, a quorum has failed, another motion to adjourn
has been admitted (V, 5744–5746).
(c) A motion that the House suspend the rules

§ 891. The 40 minutes is debatable for 40 minutes, one-
of debate on motion to
suspend the rules. half in favor of the motion and one-
half in opposition thereto.
This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XXVII) was adopted in 1880
(V, 6821). It was amended and redesignated from clause 3 to clause 2
of rule XXVII in the 102d Congress to conform to the repeal of the former
clause 2, relating to the requirement of a second (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXVII. Former clause 2
consisted of paragraph (b) and another provision currently found in clause
1(a) of rule XIX permitting 40 minutes debate on an otherwise debatable
question on which the previous question has been ordered without debate
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Before the adoption of this provision in
1880 (V, 6821) the motion to suspend the rules was not debatable (V, 5405,
6820). The 40 minutes of debate is divided between the mover and a Mem-
ber opposed to the bill, unless it develops that the mover is opposed to
the bill, in which event some Member in favor is recognized for debate
(VIII, 3416; Oct. 5, 2004, pp. 20850–52, 20862). When the mover and the
opponent divide their time with others, the practice as to alternation of
recognitions is not insisted on so rigidly as in other debate (II, 1442). Debate
should be confined to the object of the motion and may not range to the
merits of a bill not scheduled for suspension on that day (Nov. 23, 1991,
p. 34189).
Where recognition for the 20 minutes in opposition is contested, the
Speaker will accord priority first on the basis of true opposition, then on
the basis of committee membership, and only then on the basis of party
affiliation, the latter preference inuring to the minority party (VIII, 3415;
Nov. 18, 1991, p. 32510). The Chair will not examine the degree of opposi-
tion to the motion by a member of the committee who seeks the time in
opposition (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19275). Any challenge to the Member recog-
nized to control the time in opposition to the motion must be made when
the time is allocated by the Chair (May 15, 1984, p. 12215; Speaker Wright,
June 2, 1987, p. 14223).
This paragraph formerly included a provision dealing with the Speaker’s
authority to postpone further proceedings on motions to suspend the rules.
It was added in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195–
99), amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70),
and amended further in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp.
7–16). It was deleted entirely in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1981, pp. 98–113) when all of the Speaker’s postponing authorities were
consolidated into clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX).
[673]
Discharge motions, second and fourth Mon-

days
2. (a) Motions to discharge committees shall
§ 892. Motion to be in order on the second and
discharge a
committee. fourth Mondays of a month.
(b)(1) A Member may present to the Clerk a
motion in writing to discharge—
(A) a committee from consideration of a pub-
lic bill or public resolution that has been re-
ferred to it for 30 legislative days; or
(B) the Committee on Rules from consider-
ation of a resolution that has been referred to
it for seven legislative days and that proposes
a special order of business for the consider-
ation of a public bill or public resolution that
has been reported by a standing committee or
has been referred to a standing committee for
30 legislative days.
(2) Only one motion may be presented for a
bill or resolution. A Member may not file a mo-
tion to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of a resolution providing for the
consideration of more than one public bill or
public resolution or admitting or effecting a non-
germane amendment to a public bill or public
resolution.
(c) A motion presented under paragraph (b)
shall be placed in the custody of the Clerk, who
shall arrange a convenient place for the signa-
tures of Members. A signature may be with-
drawn by a Member in writing at any time be-
fore a motion is entered on the Journal. The
Clerk shall make the signatories a matter of
[674]
public record, causing the names of the Members

who have signed a discharge motion during a
week to be published in a portion of the Con-
gressional Record designated for that purpose on
the last legislative day of the week and making
cumulative lists of such names available each
day for public inspection in an appropriate office
of the House. The Clerk shall devise a means for
making such lists available to offices of the
House and to the public in electronic form.
When a majority of the total membership of the
House shall have signed the motion, it shall be
entered on the Journal, published with the sig-
natories thereto in the Record, and referred to
the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Commit-
tees.
(d)(1) On the second and fourth Mondays of a
month (except during the last six days of a ses-
sion of Congress), immediately after the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag, a motion to discharge
that has been on the calendar for at least seven
legislative days shall be privileged if called up
by a Member whose signature appears thereon.
When such a motion is called up, the House
shall proceed to its consideration under this
paragraph without intervening motion except
one motion to adjourn. Privileged motions to dis-
charge shall have precedence in the order of
their entry on the Journal.
(2) When a motion to discharge is called up,
the bill or resolution to which it relates shall be
read by title only. The motion is debatable for 20
[675]
minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-

half in opposition thereto.
(e)(1) If a motion prevails to discharge the
Committee on Rules from consideration of a res-
olution, the House shall immediately consider
the resolution, pending which the Speaker may
entertain one motion that the House adjourn but
may not entertain any other dilatory motion
until the resolution has been disposed of. If the
resolution is adopted, the House shall imme-
diately proceed to its execution.
(2) If a motion prevails to discharge a stand-
ing committee from consideration of a public bill
or public resolution, a motion that the House
proceed to the immediate consideration of such
bill or resolution shall be privileged if offered by
a Member whose signature appeared on the mo-
tion to discharge. The motion to proceed is not
debatable. If the motion to proceed is adopted,
the bill or resolution shall be considered imme-
diately under the general rules of the House. If
unfinished before adjournment of the day on
which it is called up, the bill or resolution shall
remain the unfinished business until it is dis-
posed of. If the motion to proceed is rejected, the
bill or resolution shall be referred to the appro-
priate calendar, where it shall have the same
status as if the committee from which it was dis-
charged had duly reported it to the House.
(f)(1) When a motion to discharge originated
under this clause has once been acted on by the
House, it shall not be in order to entertain dur-
ing the same session of Congress—
[676]
(A) a motion to discharge a committee from

consideration of that bill or resolution or of
any other bill or resolution that, by relating in
substance to or dealing with the same subject
matter, is substantially the same; or
(B) a motion to discharge the Committee on
Rules from consideration of a resolution pro-
viding a special order of business for the con-
sideration of that bill or resolution or of any
other bill or resolution that, by relating in
substance to or dealing with the same subject
matter, is substantially the same.
(2) A motion to discharge on the Calendar of
Motions to Discharge Committees that is ren-
dered out of order under subparagraph (1) shall
be stricken from that calendar.
This clause (formerly clause 3 of rule XXVII) was adopted December
8, 1931, and amended January 3, 1935 (VII, 1007). It displaced a rule
providing for a motion to instruct a committee to report a public bill or
resolution. The first discharge rule was adopted in the 61st Congress (June
17, 1910, pp. 8439, 8445). It was amended during the 62d Congress (Apr.
4–5, 1911, pp. 18, 80). It was further amended in the 62d Congress (H.
Res. 407, Feb. 3, 1912, p. 1685), the 68th Congress (H. Res. 146, Jan.
18, 1924, p. 1143), and the 69th Congress (H. Res. 6, Dec. 7, 1925, p.
383). This provision was redesignated from clause 4 to clause 3 in the
102d Congress to conform to the repeal of the former clause 2 of rule XXVII,
relating to the requirement of a second; it was at the same time amended
to enable debate on a resolution discharged from the Committee on Rules
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Under the previous form of the rule, where
the Committee on Rules was discharged from further consideration of a
resolution the House immediately voted on adoption of the resolution
(Speaker Rayburn, Jan. 24, 1944, p. 631).
In the 103d Congress, after a successful petition under this clause placed
on the calendar a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further
consideration of a resolution to require publication of the names of Mem-
bers who had signed pending discharge petitions, the clause was so amend-
ed (H. Res. 134, Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22698). In the 104th Congress the clause
was amended to ensure the periodic publication of such names (sec. 219,
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the 103d Congress signatures on
[677]
a motion to discharge a committee were not made public until the requisite
number had signed the motion (VII, 1008; Apr. 12, 1934, p. 6489). In the
105th Congress the clause was amended to clarify that, to be a proper
object of a discharge petition, a resolution providing a special rule must
address the consideration of only one measure and must not propose to
admit or effect a nongermane amendment (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).
A clerical correction was effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26) and a technical correction was effected in the 110th
Congress (sec. 505(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
The 112th Congress clarified that paragraph (c) does not require the disclo-
sure of actual signatures (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The phrase ‘‘a majority of the total membership of the House’’ was con-
strued to mean 218 Members (Speaker Byrns, Apr. 15, 1936, p. 5509),
not including Delegates or the Resident Commissioner; and a Delegate
or the Resident Commissioner may not sign a discharge petition even by
unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 2003, p. 23853). The rule does not authorize
signature of discharge motions by proxy (VII, 1014). When a Member with-
draws a signature from a discharge petition at any time before it garners
218 signatures and is entered on the Journal, the withdrawal is printed
in the Record (Apr. 23, 1998, p. 6590).
The rule does not apply to a bill that has been reported by a committee
during the interval between the placing of a motion to discharge on the
calendar and the day when such motion is called up for action in the House
(Apr. 23, 1934, p. 7156). The Committee on Rules may not be discharged
from further consideration of a resolution providing for an investigating
committee (Apr. 23, 1934, p. 7161).
The death or resignation of a Member who has signed a motion does
not invalidate the signature (May 31, 1934, p. 10159). It may be withdrawn
by the Member’s successor (Dec. 7, 1943, p. 10388; Jan. 17, 1946, p. 96;
Mar. 5, 1946, p. 1968; July 30, 1946, pp. 10464, 10491; Mar. 2, 1948, pp.
1993, 2001; Jan. 16, 1950, p. 436). The seven days that the motion must
be on the calendar before it may be called up begins to run as of the day
the motion is placed on the calendar (Dec. 14, 1937, p. 1517). A discharge
petition in the 102d Congress received the requisite number of signatures
on the same day it was filed (May 20, 1992, p. 12222), and subsequently
by unanimous consent the House dispensed with the motion to discharge
and agreed to consider the object of the petition (a special order of business
resolution) on a date certain under the same terms as if discharged by
motion (June 4, 1992, p. 13618). In the 103d Congress a discharge petition
also received the requisite number of signatures on the same day it was
filed (Feb. 24, 1994, p. 2999). In the 107th Congress a petition received
the requisite signatures to enable a motion to discharge a rule providing
for the consideration of a measure to provide campaign finance reform
(Jan. 24, 2002, pp. 145–56).
The right to close debate on a motion to discharge a committee is reserved
to the proponent of the motion (VII, 1010a); and the chair of the committee
[678]
Rule XV, clause 4 § 893–§ 894
being discharged, if opposed to the motion, has been recognized to control

the 10 minutes in opposition (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 27999).
Where a measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union is brought before the House by
a successful motion to discharge, the Member moving its consideration
is recognized in the House under the hour rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28004).
The point of order provided in clause 4 of rule XXI (formerly clause 5(a)
of rule XXI) does not apply to an appropriation in a bill taken away from
a committee by the motion to discharge (VII, 1019a).
Under Jefferson’s Manual (§ 364, supra) a line of Members waiting to
sign a discharge petition should proceed to the rostrum from the far right-
hand aisle and should not stand between the Chair and Members engaging
in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
Adverse report by the Committee on Rules,

second and fourth Mondays
3. An adverse report by the Committee on
§ 893. Adverse report Rules on a resolution proposing a
by Rules Committee.
special order of business for the
consideration of a public bill or public joint reso-
lution may be called up under clause 6(e) of rule
XIII as a privileged question by a Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner on a day when
it is in order to consider a motion to discharge
committees under clause 2.
This provision was initially adopted January 18, 1924, amended Decem-
ber 8, 1931 (VIII, 2268), January 3, 1949 (p. 16), January 3, 1951 (p. 18),
January 4, 1965 (p. 24) (inserting the so-called ‘‘21-day rule’’), January
10, 1967 (H. Res. 7, p. 28) (deleting the ‘‘21-day rule’’ in effect in the 89th
Congress), January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
was found only in former clause 4(c) of rule XI. It is currently found in
both this provision and clause 6(e) of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
District of Columbia business, second and

fourth Mondays
4. The second and fourth Mondays of a month
§ 894. District of shall be set apart for the consider-
Columbia.
ation of such District of Columbia
[679]
business as may be called up by the Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees
and after the disposal of such business on the
Speaker’s table as requires reference only.
The first rule allocating a fixed day for District of Columbia business
was adopted in 1870. In 1890 the rule (formerly clause 8 of rule XXIV)
was amended (IV, 3304). It was again amended December 8, 1931 (VII,
872). In the 104th Congress it was amended to reflect that the jurisdiction
of the former Committee on the District of Columbia had been subsumed
within the amalgamated jurisdiction of the newly designated Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight (and in the 106th and 110th Con-
gresses to reflect a change in the name of a committee) (sec. 202, H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 465; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 215(f), H. Res.
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 8 of rule XXIV (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight
and Government Reform) may not, on a District day, call up a bill reported
from another committee (IV, 3311). If certain of the committee’s bills are
on one of the calendars of the Committees of the Whole, a motion to go
into committee to consider them is in order (IV, 3310). Bills reported from
the District Committee (now Oversight and Government Reform) are not
so privileged as to prevent their being taken up under call of committees
on Wednesday (VII, 937). Business unfinished on one District day does
not come up on the next unless called up (IV, 3307; VII, 879, 880). The
question of consideration may not be demanded against District business
generally, but may be demanded against any bill as it is presented (IV,
3308, 3309).
On District days it is in order to go into the Committee of the Whole
to consider revenue or general appropriation bills (VI, 716–718; VII, 876,
1123). Consideration of conference reports is in order on District Monday
(VIII, 3202). District of Columbia business is in order on the second and
fourth Mondays of the month before or after other business (such as mo-
tions to suspend the rules), and the fact that the House has considered
some District of Columbia business before motions to suspend the rules
does not affect the eligibility of further such business after suspensions
have been completed (Sept. 17, 1984, p. 25523).
[680]
Private Calendar, first and third Tuesdays

5. (a) On the first Tuesday of a month, the
§ 895. Interruption of Speaker shall direct the Clerk to
the regular order on
Tuesdays for call the bills and resolutions on the
consideration of the
Private Calendar.
Private Calendar after disposal of
such business on the Speaker’s
table as requires reference only. If two or more
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commis-
sioner object to the consideration of a bill or res-
olution so called, it shall be recommitted to the
committee that reported it. No other business
shall be in order before completion of the call of
the Private Calendar on this day unless two-
thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present, agree to a motion that the House dis-
pense with the call.
(b)(1) On the third Tuesday of a month, after
the disposal of such business on the Speaker’s
table as requires reference only, the Speaker
may direct the Clerk to call the bills and resolu-
tions on the Private Calendar. Preference shall
be given to omnibus bills containing the texts of
bills or resolutions that have previously been ob-
jected to on a call of the Private Calendar. If two
or more Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner object to the consideration of a
bill or resolution so called (other than an omni-
bus bill), it shall be recommitted to the com-
mittee that reported it. Two-thirds of the Mem-
bers voting, a quorum being present, may adopt
a motion that the House dispense with the call
on this day.
[681]
(2) Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment

by paragraph. No amendment shall be in order
except to strike or to reduce amounts of money
or to provide limitations. An item or matter
stricken from an omnibus bill may not thereafter
during the same session of Congress be included
in an omnibus bill. Upon passage such an omni-
bus bill shall be resolved into the several bills
and resolutions of which it is composed. The sev-
eral bills and resolutions, with any amendments
adopted by the House, shall be engrossed, when
necessary, and otherwise considered as passed
severally by the House as distinct bills and reso-
lutions.
(c) The Speaker may not entertain a reserva-
tion of the right to object to the consideration of
a bill or resolution under this clause. A bill or
resolution considered under this clause shall be
considered in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole. A motion to dispense with the call of
the Private Calendar under this clause shall be
privileged. Debate on such a motion shall be lim-
ited to five minutes in support and five minutes
in opposition.
This provision (formerly clause 6 of rule XXIV) was adopted in the 62d
§ 896. Tuesday as a
Congress in lieu of special orders under which pension
day for private and private business formerly had been considered. The
business. rule was amended on April 23, 1932 (VII, 846) and was
adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935 (pp.
4480–89, 4538). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was transferred from former clause 6 of rule XXIV and the
archaic reference to the ‘‘Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House’’
was changed to the ‘‘Private Calendar’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A Member serving as an ‘‘official objector’’ for the Private Calendar has
periodically included in the Record an explanation of how bills on the Pri-
vate Calendar are considered (see, e.g., Dec. 5, 1995, p. 35354; June 17,
[682]
Rule XV, clause 6 § 897–§ 900
1997, p. 11015; Nov. 17, 2003, p. 29279). Clause 4 of rule XII prohibits
consideration of certain private bills. Under former clause 6(e)(2) of rule
XV (current clause 7(b) of rule XX), the Speaker has discretion to recognize
a Member to move a call of the House before the call of the Private Calendar
(July 8, 1987, p. 18972).
During the consideration of omnibus bills the Chair declines to recognize
§ 897. Methods of
Members for unanimous-consent requests to address
considering omnibus the House (May 7, 1935, p. 7100); motions to strike
bills. the last word are not in order, and requests for exten-
sion of time under the five-minute rule are not enter-
tained (Speaker Byrns, Mar. 17, 1936, pp. 3890, 3894).
An omnibus private bill is normally passed over by the Clerk when the
Private Calendar is called on the first Tuesday of the month, but the House
may prescribe, by special order, that such omnibus bills shall be passed
over (June 27, 1968, p. 19106). During the consideration of the First Omni-
bus Bill of 1968, seven roll calls occurred and seven of the 15 bills carried
therein were stricken by motion (Sept. 17, 1968, pp. 27165–84). Amend-
ments to the bill were strictly limited by the rule to those striking or reduc-
ing amounts of money carried in the bill or to provide limitations, and
debate on those permissible motions was under the five-minute rule. After
the passage of an omnibus bill, it is resolved into the various private bills
of which it is composed and each is engrossed and messaged to the Senate
as if individually passed; thus it is possible, after passage of the omnibus
bill, to lay on the table a private House or Senate bill that was included
therein (by unanimous consent) (Sept. 17, 1968, p. 27184).
On the third Tuesday of the month, the calendar is not called unless
the Speaker so directs (Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29646); and in those cases, omnibus
bills on the Calendar are called before individual bills thereon (Feb. 17,
1970, pp. 3605–13). A motion to dispense with the call of the Private Cal-
endar on the third Tuesday of each month is likewise in order (provided
that the Chair has not exercised discretionary authority (Nov. 17, 1981,
p. 27770 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) to dispense with the call).
For the former Corrections Calendar rule, see § 898 of the House Rules
§ 898. Former
and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110–162).
Corrections Calendar.
For the former Consent Calendar rule, see § 899 of the House Rules
§ 899. Former Consent
Calendar.
Calendar Call of Committees, Wednesdays

6. (a) On Wednesday of each week, business
§ 900. Calendar shall not be in order before comple-
Wednesday business.
tion of the call of those committees
[683]
(except as provided by clause 4 of rule XIV)

whose chair, or other member authorized by the
committee, has announced to the House a re-
quest for such call on the preceding legislative
day.
(b) A bill or resolution on either the House or
the Union Calendar, except bills or resolutions
that are privileged under the Rules of the
House, may be called under this clause. A bill or
resolution called up from the Union Calendar
shall be considered in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union without
motion, subject to clause 3 of rule XVI. General
debate on a measure considered under this
clause shall be confined to the measure and may
not exceed two hours equally divided between a
proponent and an opponent.
(c) This clause does not apply during the last
two weeks of a session of Congress.
This clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XXIV), was adopted March 1, 1909,
and amended March 15, 1909. The last sentence of paragraph (b) (first
proviso of former clause 7 of rule XXIV) was adopted January 18, 1916.
The clause was rewritten in the 111th Congress to provide for Calendar
Wednesday business from a committee only upon its request (sec. 2(e),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). For a history of the clause as it existed
before that Congress, and related precedents, see §§ 900, 901 of the House
Rules and Manual for the One Hundred Tenth Congress (H. Doc. 109–
157).
The rule applies to unprivileged bills only, and when a bill otherwise
§ 901. Decisions on
unprivileged is given a privileged status by unanimous
Calendar Wednesday. consent or by rule it is automatically rendered ineligible
for consideration on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 932–
935). The rule does not apply to amendments between the Houses, unre-
ported bills, or Senate bills being held at the Speaker’s desk (Mar. 12,
2008, p. l). House Calendar bills have no preference over Union Calendar
bills (VII, 938).
When a bill on the Union Calendar is called up on Calendar Wednesday
the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole
[684]
House on the state of the Union (VII, 939; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 358), and
when a Union Calendar bill is the unfinished business the Speaker declares
the House in Committee of the Whole without motion (VII, 940, 942).
The question of consideration may be raised on a bill on the House Cal-
endar on Calendar Wednesday, even after one Wednesday has been devoted
to its consideration (VIII, 2447), and the question of consideration is prop-
erly raised on Union Calendar bills before automatically resolving into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union (VII, 952).
During the 61st and 62d Congresses it was held that the call of commit-
tees rested where the call left off on the preceding day, whether the last
call was on a Wednesday or during the morning hour on another day,
thus making but one committee call under the two rules. But under the
later practice there have been two distinct calls of committees, one under
clause 4 of rule XIV (formerly clause 4 of rule XXIV), the morning hour,
and another under Calendar Wednesday (VII, 944) when committees are
called twice (VII, 924; Mar. 12, 2008, p. l).
The same rule of debate applies to House Calendar bills called up on
Calendar Wednesday as on other days, and the Member in charge of the
bill may move the previous question at any time (VII, 955).
The previous question having been ordered on a bill on Calendar Wednes-
day, the bill becomes the unfinished business on Thursday (VII, 895, 967).
It is in order to consider a vetoed bill on Calendar Wednesday, because
such a question is privileged under the Constitution (VII, 912), but a bill
privileged by reason of the Rules of the House cannot be called up on
Calendar Wednesday (VII, 932); for example, a general appropriation bill
(VII, 904), or a bill under consideration by reason of a special order, unless
the special order expressly sets aside Calendar Wednesday (VII, 773), or
a conference report (VII, 899). A motion to reconsider an action taken on
a bill on Tuesday may be entered, but may not be considered on Calendar
Wednesday (VII, 905). Privileged bills may be reported but not considered
on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 907), except by unanimous consent (Jan.
25, 1984, p. 357). The Speaker has entertained a unanimous-consent re-
quest for business (to send a bill to conference) (Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6869)
and for one-minute speeches (Mar. 21, 1984, pp. 6187, 6188; May 7, 2008,
p. l) before the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. District of
Columbia business is eligible for consideration on Calendar Wednesday
(VII, 937). A motion to adjourn (May 7, 2008, p. l) and the administration
of the oath (May 7, 2008, p. l; VI, 22) may interrupt the call of committees.
Once Calendar Wednesday proceedings are completed, other business may
be conducted (VII, 921).
It has been held that if no Member opposed to the bill desires to claim
the hour specified in the rule for general debate against the bill, the time
may be claimed by a Member who is in favor of the bill (VII, 962), but
this principle has been questioned (VII, 961).
Clause 2(b) of rule XIII (formerly clause 2(l)(1) of rule XI), requiring
the chair of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly
[685]
§ 902 Rule XVI, clause 1
measures approved by the committee and to take such necessary steps

to bring the matter to a vote, is sufficient authority for the chair to call
up a properly-noticed bill on Calendar Wednesday, but any other committee
member must obtain specific authority of the committee to call up a re-
ported bill on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 928, 929; Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2162;
Feb. 1, 1984, p. 1193; Sept. 12, 1984, p. 25100; Apr. 18, 2007, p. 9201).
Before the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and the subsequent adop-
tion of former clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI, authority to call up a bill on
Calendar Wednesday must have been given to its chair by a committee
(IV, 3127).
RULE XVI
MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS
Motions
1. Every motion entertained by the Speaker
§ 902. Motions reduced shall be reduced to writing on the
to writing and entered
on the Journal. demand of a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner and, unless
it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered
on the Journal with the name of the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner offering it.
A dilatory motion may not be entertained by the
Speaker.
In 1880 the first sentence of this clause was composed of language adopt-
ed in 1789 and 1806 (V, 5300). The last sentence of this clause (formerly
clause 10 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1890 (V, 5706) to make permanent
a principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker, who had declared
that the ‘‘object of a parliamentary body is action, and not stoppage of
action’’ (V, 5713). When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated
clause 1 and former clause 10 of rule XVI under this clause (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Because of this provision it has been held not in order to amend or strike
a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV, 2783, 2789).
A motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813, 2844–
2846). See § 71, supra, for discussion of Journal entries. Any Member may
demand that a motion, including the motion to adjourn, be reduced to
writing and in the proper form (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608; Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 509), and the demand may be initiated by the Chair (July 24, 1986,
p. 17641). Consistent with this clause, the chair of the Committee of the
[686]
Rule XVI, clause 2 § 903–§ 904
Whole requires that each amendment be reduced to writing (July 22, 1994,
p. 17617). Although a motion to recommit is properly presented in writing,
no rule requires that the proponent distribute copies on the floor (June
28, 2000, p. 12749).
The Speaker has declined to entertain debate or appeal on a question
as to the dilatoriness of a motion, because doing so
§ 903. Dilatory
motions. would nullify the rule (V, 5731); but has recognized that
the authority conferred by the rule should not be exer-
cised until the object of the dilatory motion ‘‘becomes apparent to the
House’’ (V, 5713, 5714). For example, the Chair has held that a virtually
consecutive invocation of former rule XXX (current clause 6 of rule XVII),
resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on reconsideration
thereof, was not dilatory under this provision (or former clause 4(b) of
rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII)) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). Usually,
but not always, the Speaker awaits a point of order from the floor before
acting (V, 5715–5722). The rule has been applied to the motions to adjourn
(V, 5721, 5731–5733; VIII, 2796, 2813), to reconsider (V, 5735; VIII, 2797,
2815, 2822), to fix the time of five-minute debate in Committee of the
Whole (V, 5734; VIII, 2817), to lay on the table (VIII, 2816), and to the
question of consideration (V, 5731–5733). The point of no quorum also has
been ruled out (V, 5724–5730; VIII, 2801, 2808), and former clause 6 of
rule XV (current clause 7 of rule XX) as adopted in the 93d Congress and
as amended in the 95th Congress prevents the making of a point of no
quorum under certain circumstances. A demand for tellers has been held
dilatory (V, 5735, 5736; VIII, 2436, 2818–2821), but the constitutional right
of the Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled (V,
5737; VIII, 3107). For a ruling by Speaker Gillett construing dilatory mo-
tions, see VIII, 2804. For discussion of dilatory motions pending consider-
ation of a report from the Committee on Rules, see §§ 857–858, supra.
Withdrawal
2. When a motion is entertained, the Speaker
§ 904. Stating and shall state it or cause it to be read
withdrawing of
motions. aloud by the Clerk before it is de-
bated. The motion then shall be in
the possession of the House but may be with-
drawn at any time before a decision or amend-
ment thereon.
The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time
a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement
became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
5304). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodi-
fied its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[687]
The House always insists that the motion be stated or read before debate
shall begin (V, 4937, 4983) and the Clerk’s reading may be dispensed with
only by unanimous consent (Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671; see also § 432, supra).
It is the duty of the Speaker to put the question on a motion in order
under the rules and practice without passing on its constitutional effect
(IV, 3550; VIII, 2225, 3031, 3071, 3427). In a case wherein a clerk presiding
during organization of the House declined to put a question, a Member-
elect put the question from the floor (I, 67).
Under certain circumstances (such as the practice of extinguishing recon-
sideration by laying a motion to reconsider on the table), a Member may
offer a double motion (V, 5637).
A motion may be withdrawn at any time before a decision thereon, in-
cluding a motion to instruct conferees (Oct. 31, 2000,
withdrawal of p. 25737) and a contempt resolution (Oct. 27, 2000, p.
motions. 25200). Unanimous consent is not required to withdraw
a pending unanimous-consent request (Dec. 16, 1985,
p. 36575).
While the House was dividing on a second of the previous question (this
second is no longer required) on a motion to refer a resolution, the pro-
ponent was permitted to withdraw the resolution (V, 5350). A motion was
withdrawn after the previous question had been ordered on an appeal from
a decision on a point of order as to the motion (V, 5356).
A motion to suspend the rules could be withdrawn at any time before
a second was ordered (a second is no longer required) (V, 6844; VIII, 3405,
3419), even on another suspension day (V, 6844). However, the motion
could not be withdrawn if a second were ordered, except by unanimous
consent (VIII, 3420). In the modern practice, in which a second is not re-
quired on a motion to suspend the rules, the motion may be withdrawn
at any time before action is taken thereon (July 27, 1981, p. 17563) includ-
ing after proceedings have been postponed under clause 8 of rule XX (Sept.
29, 2010, p. l).
A motion may be withdrawn although an amendment has been offered
and is pending (V, 5347; VI, 373; VIII, 2639). In the House an amendment,
whether simple or in the nature of a substitute, may be withdrawn at
any time before an amendment is adopted thereto or a decision is had
thereon (VI, 587; VIII, 2332, 2764). The same right to withdraw an amend-
ment exists ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ (IV, 4935; June
26, 1973, p. 21315) and in standing committees where general procedures
of the House as in the Committee of the Whole apply (§ 427, supra). How-
ever, unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment is required in Com-
mittee of the Whole (V, 5221, 5753; VI, 570; VIII, 2465, 2859, 3405), unless
withdrawal authority has been conferred by the House (July 22, 1999, p.
17291; Apr. 3, 2003, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. l). An amendment
disposed of in the Committee of the Whole by voice vote may not be with-
drawn (June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945).
[688]
Rule XVI, clause 3 § 906
A motion may be withdrawn after the affirmative side has been taken
on a division (V, 5348). Withdrawal of a pending resolution is not in order
when the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair (Oct.
14, 1970, pp. 36665–69). A motion that the House resolve into the Com-
mittee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill may be withdrawn pend-
ing a point of order against consideration of the bill. If the motion is with-
drawn, the Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of order (VIII, 3405;
Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385).
A decision that prevents withdrawal may consist of the following: (1)
the ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5353), either directly on the motion
or on a motion to lay it on the table (V, 5354); (2) the ordering of the
previous question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. 17967), or the demand there-
for (V, 5489), or (3) the refusal to lay on the table (V, 5351, 5352; VIII,
2640).
If the Speaker has put the question on adoption of a resolution to a
voice vote without the ordering of the previous question, and the yeas and
nays have not been ordered (V, 5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501) or if a voice
vote (and the record vote on the associated motion for the previous ques-
tion) has been vacated (Sept. 25, 2008, p. l), the resolution may be with-
drawn. A privileged resolution called up in the House is debated under
the hour rule; and the Member calling up such a resolution is recognized
for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the resolution has been pre-
viously considered, debated, and then withdrawn before action thereon
(Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303–08).
Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
pending a point of no quorum against a voice vote thereon (pursuant to
former clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX)), the manager may
withdraw such motion when it is again before the House as unfinished
business (July 24, 1989, p. 15818).
A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision there-
on has the resulting power to modify the motion (V, 5358; Oct. 23, 1990,
p. 32667), and a Member having the right to withdraw a motion to instruct
conferees before a decision thereon has the resulting power to modify the
motion by offering a different motion at the same stage of proceedings
(July 14, 1993, p. 15661). A motion being withdrawn, all proceedings on
an appeal arising from a point of order related to it fell thereby (V, 5356).
Question of consideration
3. When a motion or proposition is enter-
§ 906. The question of tained, the question, ‘‘Will the
consideration.
House now consider it?’’ may not be
put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner.
[689]
§ 907–§ 908 Rule XVI, clause 3
The question of consideration is an outgrowth of the practice of the

House, and was in use as early as 1808. The rule was adopted in 1817
in order to limit its use. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
1999, p. 47). It is the means by which the House protects itself from busi-
ness that it does not wish to consider (V, 4936; VIII, 2436). The refusal
to consider does not amount to the rejection of a bill or prevent its being
brought before the House again (V, 4940), and an affirmative vote does
not prevent the question of consideration from being raised on a subsequent
day when the bill is again called up as unfinished business (VIII, 2438).
It has once been held that a question of privilege that the House has refused
to consider may be brought up again on the same day (V, 4942). The ques-
tion of consideration is not debatable (VIII, 2447), and thus not subject
to the motion to lay on the table (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27643). See also clause
6 of rule XIV (§ 884, supra), which provides that questions relating to the
priority of business are not debatable.
A Member may demand the question of consideration, although the
§ 907. Raising the
Member in charge of the bill may claim the floor for
question of debate (V, 4944, 4945; VI, 404); but after debate has
consideration. begun the demand may not be made (V, 4937–4939).
It has been admitted, however, after the offering of a
motion to lay on the table but before its disposition (V, 4943). The demand
for the question of consideration may not be prevented by a motion for
the previous question (V, 5478), but after the previous question is ordered
it may not be demanded (V, 4965, 4966), even on another day, unless other
business has intervened (V, 4967, 4968). The question of consideration
pending, a motion to refer is not in order (V, 5554).
The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold good
in a case in which the yeas and nays had been ordered and the House
had adjourned pending the failure of a quorum on the roll call (V, 4949).
A question of consideration undisposed of at an adjournment does not recur
as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948). It is not in
order to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to consider a bill
(V, 5626, 5627), although it is in order to reconsider an affirmative vote
on the question of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27644).
The question of consideration may be demanded against a matter of
§ 908. Questions
the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member
subject to the to a seat (V, 4941), a question involving the privilege
question of of the House (VI, 560), against the motion to reconsider
consideration. (VIII, 2437), but not against a bill returned with the
President’s objection (V, 4960, 4970). It may not be
raised against a proposition before the House merely for reference, as a
petition (V, 4964). It may not be demanded against a class of business
in order under a special order or rule, but may be demanded against each
bill individually (IV, 3308, 3309; V, 4958, 4959). It may be raised against
[690]
a bill the consideration of which has been provided by a special order of

business (IV, 3175; V, 4953–4957; June 22, 2006, p. 12280; Jan. 24, 2007,
p. 2140; Jan. 31, 2007, p. 2736), unless the order provides for immediate
consideration (V, 4960) or provides for the Speaker’s declaration that the
House resolve into the Committee of the Whole under clause 2 of rule
XVIII. The question may be raised against a bill on the Union Calendar
on Calendar Wednesday before resolving into the Committee of the Whole
even after one Wednesday has been devoted to it (VIII, 2447); but it may
not be raised against a report from the Committee on Rules relating to
the order of considering individual bills (V, 4961–4963; VIII, 2440, 2441,
see § 858, supra).
The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion relating
to the order of business (V, 4971–4976; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p. 9216);
to a motion to discharge a committee (V, 4977); or against a motion to
take from the Speaker’s table Senate bills substantially the same as House
bills already favorably reported and on the House Calendar (VIII, 2443).
On a motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a bill the House
expresses its wish as to consideration by its vote on this motion (V, 4973–
4976; VI, 51; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p. 9216), and the question of consid-
eration is not available after the House has resolved into the Committee
of the Whole (May 10, 2007, p. 12191).
A point of order against consideration of a bill should be made and de-
§ 909. Relation of
cided before the question of consideration is put (V,
question of 4950, 4951; VII, 2439), but if the point relates merely
consideration to to the manner of considering, it should be passed on
points of order. afterwards (V, 4950). In general, after the House has
decided to consider, a point of order raised with the
object of preventing consideration, in whole or part, comes too late (IV,
4598; V, 4952, 6912–6914), but on a conference report the question of con-
sideration may be demanded before points of order are raised against the
substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, p.
33019).
§ 910. Unfunded
mandates; Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658–658g) that imposes
congressional several requirements on committees with respect to
earmarks; paygo. ‘‘Federal mandates’’ (secs. 423–424; 2 U.S.C. 658b–c),
establishes points of order to permit votes on whether
to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d), and permits a
vote on the question of consideration of a rule or order waiving such points
of order in the House (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). The latter provision
also prescribes that such points of order be disposed of by the question
of consideration with respect to the proposition against which they are
lodged (after 20 minutes of debate) (sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C. 658e(b)). See
§ 1127, infra.
[691]
Clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a point of order against consideration

of certain measures for failure to disclose (or disclaim the presence of)
certain earmarks, tax benefits, and tariff benefits (paragraphs (a) and (b)),
and permits a vote on the question of consideration of a rule or order
waiving such points of order (paragraph (c)). Certain cognizability thresh-
olds are established for points of order under the rule (paragraph (d)).
See § 1068d, infra.
Both points of order may be raised against the same special order of
business (May 14, 2008, p. l).
Former clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI required the Chair to put the question
of consideration with regard to measures that included an emergency des-
ignation for pay-as-you-go principles. See § 1068j, infra.
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (tit. I, P.L. 111–139) requires
the Chair to put the question of consideration with regard to measures
that include a pay-as-you-go emergency designation:
SEC. 4. PAYGO ESTIMATES AND PAYGO SCORECARDS.
* * *
(g) EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.—
(1) DESIGNATION IN STATUTE.—If a provision of direct spending or
revenue legislation in a PAYGO Act is enacted as an emergency re-
quirement that the Congress so designates in statute pursuant to
this section, the amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and rev-
enue in all fiscal years resulting from that provision shall be treated
as an emergency requirement for the purposes of this Act.
(2) DESIGNATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—If a
PAYGO Act includes a provision expressly designated as an emer-
gency for the purposes of this title, the Chair shall put the question
of consideration with respect thereto.
The question of consideration applies to an emergency designation con-
tained in an amendment between the Houses (in addition to a bill or joint
resolution) (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. l; July 22, 2010, p. l) but not to a
measure considered under suspension of the rules (e.g., Feb. 25, 2010, p.
l). Failure of the Chair to put the question of consideration of a measure
under this provision may be overtaken by subsequent action of the House
on the measure (July 1, 2010, p. l). Where a measure contained an emer-
gency designation under section 4(g)(1) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 and an emergency designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go
principles under former clause 10(c) of rule XXI, the Chair put a single
question of consideration with respect thereto pending consideration of the
measure (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. l).
[692]
Precedence of motions
4. (a) When a question is under debate, only
§ 911. Precedence of the following motions may be enter-
privileged motions.
tained (which shall have precedence
in the following order):
(1) To adjourn.
(2) To lay on the table.
(3) For the previous question.
(4) To postpone to a day certain.
(5) To refer.
(6) To amend.
(7) To postpone indefinitely.
(b) A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, or
for the previous question shall be decided with-
out debate. A motion to postpone to a day cer-
tain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being
decided, may not be allowed again on the same
day at the same stage of the question.
(c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the
Speaker, in the discretion of the Speaker, to en-
tertain a motion—
(A) that the Speaker be authorized to de-
clare a recess; or
(B) that when the House adjourns it stand
adjourned to a day and time certain.
(2) Either motion shall be of equal privilege
with the motion to adjourn and shall be decided
without debate.
The first form of this clause appeared in 1789, but amendments have
been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former
final two sentences of the clause) was added in the 93d Congress to enable
a privileged, nondebatable motion to fix the adjournment (H. Res. 6, Jan.
3, 1973, pp. 26–27), and amended in the 102d Congress to enable a privi-
leged, nondebatable motion for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
[693]
p. 39). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress

(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). When the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, the provision of this clause addressing the
motion for the previous question was transferred to clause 2 of rule XIX
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The application of the first sentence of the clause is confined to cases
wherein a question is ‘‘under debate’’ (V, 5379). It has been held that a
question ceases to be ‘‘under debate’’ after the previous question has been
ordered (V, 5415). For a discussion of the motion for the previous question,
see §§ 994–1000, infra.
The motion to adjourn not only has the highest precedence when a ques-
§ 912. The motion to
tion is under debate, but, with certain restrictions, it
adjourn. has the highest privilege under all other conditions.
Even the following yield to it: (1) a question of privilege
(III, 2521), including a resolution considered to be a ‘‘question of high con-
stitutional privilege’’ such as one declaring the Office of Speaker vacant
and to direct the House to proceed at once to the election of a new Speaker
(VIII, 2641); (2) the filing of a privileged report pursuant to former clause
4(a) of rule XI (current clause 5 of rule XIII) (Apr. 29, 1985, p. 9699);
(3) a motion to suspend the rules (Aug. 11, 1992, p. 23086); (4) a motion
to reconsider (V, 5605; see also clause 3 of rule XIX); (5) in the absence
of a quorum, the motion for a call of the House (VIII, 2642); (6) a motion
to dispense with further proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643); (7) a mo-
tion directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees during a call of
the House (June 6, 1973, p. 18403). A conference report may defer it only
until the report is before the House (V, 6451–6453).
Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only one
motion to adjourn is in order pending consideration of a privileged report
from the Committee on Rules or a motion that the House suspend the
rules, respectively. The motion may be made: (1) after the yeas and nays
are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); (2) before the
reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker’s approval thereof (Speak-
er Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a motion to reconsider
(Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) after the House rejects a motion to table
a motion to instruct conferees and before the vote occurs on the motion
to instruct (May 29, 1980, pp. 12717–19); (5) when the Speaker is absent
and the Clerk is presiding (I, 228). The motion to adjourn may not interrupt
a Member who has the floor (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993,
p. 6373; Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20902) including, for example, by virtue of unani-
mous-consent permission to announce to the House the legislative program
(Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549). It may not: (1) interrupt a call of the yeas and
nays (V, 6053) or the actual act of voting by other means (V, 5360); (2)
be made after the House has voted to go into Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4728; V, 5367, 5368); (3) defer the right of a Member to take the
oath (I, 622); (4) be repeated in the absence of intervening business (Speak-
er Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26243). When no question is under debate
[694]
it may not displace a motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn
(V, 5381). The motion to adjourn is not available when the previous ques-
tion has been ordered by special rule to final passage without intervening
motion (IV, 3211–3213, June 14, 2001, p. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969).
A Member’s mere revelation that the Member seeks to offer a motion to
adjourn does not suffice to make that motion ‘‘pending,’’ and thus the Chair
remains able to declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997,
p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. l).
When the House has fixed the hour of daily meeting, the simple motion
to adjourn may not be amended (V, 5754), whether by specifying a par-
ticular day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see § 913, infra, for a discussion
of the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to which the House
shall adjourn); or by stating the purposes of adjournment (V, 5371, 5372;
VIII, 2647). However, when the hour of daily meeting is not fixed, the
motion to adjourn may fix it (V, 5362, 5363). A motion to adjourn is in
order in simple form only (VIII, 2647), is not debatable (V, 5359; Feb.
13, 2002, p. 1291), may not be laid on the table (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195),
is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716), and is not entertained
when the Committee of the Whole rises to report proceedings incident to
securing a quorum (VI, 673; VIII, 2436). After the motion is made neither
another motion nor an appeal may intervene before the taking of the vote
(V, 5361). When the House adopts the motion to adjourn, it must adjourn
immediately; and a unanimous-consent request that the House proceed
to the calling of special-order speeches is not in order (Sept. 27, 1993,
p. 22608).
The motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall adjourn,
§ 913. Motion to fix the
in its present form, was included in this clause and
day to which the given privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res.
House shall adjourn 6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26). At several times during the 19th
and motion to century, the motion to fix the day to which the House
authorize the Speaker
to declare a recess.
should adjourn was included within the rule as to the
precedence of motions but was dropped because of its
use in obstructive tactics (V, 5301, 5379). The following precedent relates
to the use of the motion in its earlier form: No question being under debate,
a motion to fix the day to which the House should adjourn, already made,
was held not to give way to a motion to adjourn (V, 5381). But if the
motion to adjourn be made first, the motion to fix the day or for a recess
is not entertained (V, 5302). The motion to fix the day is not debatable
(V, 5379, 5380; VIII, 2648, 3367), requires a quorum for adoption (IV, 2954;
June 19, 1975, p. 19789; June 22, 1976, p. 19755), and is only in order
if offered on the day on which the adjournment applies (Sept. 23, 1976,
p. 32104). The House may convene and adjourn twice on the same calendar
day pursuant to a motion under this clause that when the House adjourn
it adjourn to a time certain later in the day, thereby meeting for two legisla-
tive days on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771; Oct. 29,
1987, p. 29933; June 29, 1995, p. 17716). When the Speaker exercises dis-
[695]
cretion to entertain at any time a motion that when the House adjourn
it stand adjourned to a day and time certain, the motion is of equal privilege
with the simple motion to adjourn and takes precedence over a pending
question on which the vote has been objected to for lack of a quorum (Nov.
17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion is not subject to the motion to lay on
the table because it is not debatable and the precedence conferred on the
motion to table only applies to a question that is ‘‘under debate’’ (Nov.
17, 1981, p. 27770).
Under the express terms of clause 4, the motion to authorize the Speaker
to declare a recess is nondebatable and has equal privilege with the motion
to adjourn. The House (without the consent of the Senate) may authorize
the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15, 1995, p.
37102).
The motion to lay on the table is used in the House for a final, adverse
§ 914. Motion to lay on
disposition of a matter without debate (V, 5389), and
the table. is in order before the Member entitled to prior recogni-
tion for debate has begun remarks (V, 5391–5395; VIII,
2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the motion is not
debatable (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749). The motion is applicable to a motion
to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), a motion to postpone to a day certain
(VIII, 2654, 2657), a resolution presenting a question of privilege (VI, 560),
a privileged resolution offered at the direction of a party caucus electing
Members to committees (Feb. 5, 1997, p. 1541), an appeal from a decision
of the Chair (VIII, 3453; June 22, 2006, p. 12299), a motion to discharge
a committee from a resolution of inquiry (VI, 415), a proposal to investigate
with a view to impeachment (VI, 541), a concurrent resolution to adjourn
sine die (Mar. 27, 1936, p. 4512), and a resolution to expel a Member (Oct.
1, 1976, p. 35111). But a question of privilege (affecting the right of a
Member to a seat) that has been laid on the table may be taken therefrom
on motion made and agreed to by the House (V, 5438). The motion to
lay on the table has the precedence given it by the rule, but may not be
made after the previous question is ordered (V, 5415–5422; VIII, 2655),
or even after the yeas and nays have been ordered on the demand for
the previous question (V, 5408, 5409); but pending the demand for the
previous question on a motion that is under debate, the motion to lay
the primary motion on the table is preferential and is voted on first (Speak-
er Albert, Sept. 22, 1976, pp. 31876–82; Speaker O’Neill, July 10, 1985,
pp. 18397–18400). The previous question having been ordered on a bill
to final passage, the motion to lay the bill on the table may not then be
offered pending a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the bill had been
passed or rejected (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512).
When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith
go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment
is laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII, 2656),
and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it and
[696]
Rule XVI, clause 4 § 914a
is thus considered dilatory under former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current

clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). This rule holds good
as to a House bill with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201–6203; Sept.
28, 1978, p. 32334), but laying on the table the motion to postpone consider-
ation of Senate amendments was held not to carry to the table pending
motions for their disposition (VIII, 2657). The Journal does not accompany
a proposed amendment to the table (V, 5435, 5436); the original question
does not accompany an appeal (V, 5434); a resolution does not accompany
a preamble or another resolution with which it is connected (V, 5428, 5430);
a petition does not accompany the motion to receive it when the latter
is laid on the table (V, 5431–5433); and a bill does not accompany a motion
to instruct conferees that is laid on the table (VIII, 2658).
A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which
an amendment to a resolution had been agreed to would not carry the
resolution to the table (VIII, 2652).
The motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719, 4720;
VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 21, 1999, p. 17054)
and does not apply to motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole
(VI, 726). It may not be amended (V, 5754), for example, to operate for
a specified time (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749).
The motion to lay on the table generally is not applicable to motions
that are neither debatable nor amendable. As such, it is not applicable
to the following motions: (1) to adjourn (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195); (2) that
when the House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain
(Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770); (3) to dispense with further proceedings under
a call of the House (Speaker McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651–54);
(4) to order the previous question (V, 5410, 5411; Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27649).
Furthermore, the motion may not be applied to: (1) a motion to suspend
the rules (V, 5405); (2) a motion to commit after the previous question
is ordered (V, 5412–5414; VIII, 2653, 2655); (3) any motion relating to
the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be applied to a motion
to discharge a committee under former clause 3 of rule XXVII (current
clause 2 of rule XV) (June 11, 1945, p. 5892) but may be applied to the
motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a resolution of in-
quiry (V, 5407).
The motion to lay on the table is applicable to debatable secondary or
privileged motions for disposal of another matter; thus a motion to refer
(V, 5433; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975–78) or a motion to recede and
concur in a Senate amendment in disagreement may be laid on the table
(Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 22, 1978, p. 4072) without carrying the pending
matter to the table. The motion is not applicable to a conference report
(V, 6540).
The precedents relating to the motion for the previous question are anno-
§ 914a. The motion for
tated in §§ 994–1000.
the previous question.
[697]
As indicated in the rule, the motions to postpone are two in number

and distinct. The first one is to postpone to a day cer-
postpone. tain, and the second one is to postpone indefinitely.
Each must apply to the whole and not a part of the
pending proposition (V, 5306). Neither may be entertained after the pre-
vious question is ordered (V, 5319–5321; VIII, 2616, 2617), or be applied
to a special order providing for the consideration of a class of bills (V,
4958); but when a bill comes before the House under the terms of a special
order that assigns a day merely, a motion to postpone may be applied
to the bill (IV, 3177–3182). Business postponed to a day certain is in order
on that day immediately after the approval of the Journal and disposition
of business on the Speaker’s table, unless displaced by more highly privi-
leged business (VIII, 2614). If consideration of a measure postponed to
a day certain resumes as unfinished business in the House, recognition
for debate does not begin anew but recommences from the point where
it was interrupted (June 10, 1980, p. 13801). It is not in order to move
to postpone pending business to Calendar Wednesday (VIII, 2614), but
if so postponed by consent, when consideration is concluded on that
Wednesday, proceedings under the Calendar Wednesday rule are in order
(VII, 970). The motion is not available in Committee of the Whole (July
14, 1998, p. 15305), but a motion that a bill be reported with the rec-
ommendation that it be postponed is in order in the Committee of the
Whole proceeding under the general rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII,
2372), is debatable (VIII, 2372), and is a preferential motion (VIII, 2372,
2615), but debate is confined to the advisability of postponement only (VIII,
2372). The House has postponed, along with the underlying matter, an
appeal from a decision of the Chair thereon (VIII, 2613). A bill under consid-
eration in the morning hour may not be made a special order by a motion
to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).
The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify the hour (V,
5307). The motion may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). It is debatable
only within narrow limits (V, 5309, 5310), the merits of the bill to which
it is applied not being within those limits (V, 5311–5315; VIII, 2372, 2616,
2640).
The motion to postpone indefinitely opens to debate all the merits of
the proposition to which it is applied (V, 5316). It may not be applied
to the motion to refer (V, 5317), the motion to suspend the rules (V, 5322),
or the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 726), and
it is reasonable to infer that it is equally inapplicable to the other motions
enumerated in the rule and to motions relating to the order of business.
However, the motion to postpone indefinitely may be applied to the motion
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole pursuant
to the provisions of a statute, enacted under the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives, that specifically allows such a motion in the
consideration of a resolution disapproving a certain executive action (Mar.
10, 1977, p. 7021; Aug. 3, 1977, p. 26528).
[698]
The parliamentary motion to refer is explicitly recognized and given sta-

tus in four different situations under House rules: the
refer. ordinary motion provided for in this clause; the motion
to recommit (or commit, as the case may be), with or
without instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering of the pre-
vious question as provided in clause 2(a) of rule XIX (V, 5569); the motion
to recommit (or commit, as the case may be), with or without instructions,
after the previous question has been ordered on a bill or joint resolution
to final passage, provided in clause 2(b) of rule XIX; and the motion to
refer, with or without instructions, pending a vote in the House to strike
the enacting clause as provided in clause 9 of rule XVIII. The terms ‘‘refer,’’
‘‘commit,’’ and ‘‘recommit’’ are sometimes used interchangeably (V, 5521;
VIII, 2736), but when used in the precise manner and situation con-
templated in each rule reflect certain differences based upon whether the
question to which applied is ‘‘under debate,’’ whether the motion itself is
debatable, whether a minority Member or a Member opposed to the ques-
tion to which the motion is applied is entitled to a priority of recognition,
and whether the prohibition against a special order reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules denying a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution
pending final passage is applicable. For a discussion of the motion to recom-
mit, see the annotations under clause 2 of rule XIX. The motion may not
be used in direct form in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326);
and if a bill is being considered under the provisions of a resolution stating
that ‘‘at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment under
the five-minute rule the Committee shall rise and report the bill back to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted,’’ a motion
that the Committee rise and report to the House with the recommendation
that the bill be recommitted to the legislative committee reporting it is
not in order (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may be made after the engross-
ment and third reading of a bill, even though the previous question may
not have been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).
If the previous question is rejected on a preferential motion to dispose
of Senate amendments in disagreement, the preferential motion remains
‘‘under debate’’ and the motion to refer may be offered under this clause
(Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887). Where a motion for the previous
question on a resolution has preempted a pending motion to refer such
resolution, the motion to refer remains pending and debatable under the
hour rule upon rejection of the motion for the previous question (Apr. 22,
2010, p. l). A motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend
when a question is under debate (such as where the previous question
has been rejected), and the Chair recognizes the Member seeking to offer
the preferential motion before the less preferential motion is read (Aug.
13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975–78).
The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of this clause is
debatable within narrow limits (V, 5054) and may be offered by any Mem-
ber (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending question)
[699]
when that question is ‘‘under debate,’’ i.e., when the previous question
has not been moved or ordered, but the merits of the proposition sought
to be referred may not be brought into the debate (V, 5564–5568; VI, 65,
549; VIII, 2740). The motion to refer with instructions is also debatable
(V, 5561); but the previous question is preferential (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4997).
The motion to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select
§ 917. Instructions
as well as a standing committee (IV, 4401) without re-
with the motion to gard for rules of jurisdiction (IV, 4375; V, 5527) and
refer. may provide for reference to another committee than
that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Com-
mittee of the Whole (V, 5552, 5553), and even that the committee be en-
dowed with power to send for persons and papers (IV, 4402). Unless the
previous question is ordered the motion may be amended (VIII, 2712, 2738)
in part (V, 5754); by substitute (VIII, 2698, 2738, 2759); or by adding in-
structions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582–5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982, pp.
20969, 20975–78).
The rule specifies that the motions to postpone and refer shall not be
§ 918. Repetition of
repeated on the same day at the same stage of the ques-
motions. tion (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). Under the prac-
tice, a motion to adjourn may be repeated only after
intervening business (V, 5373; VIII, 2814), debate (V, 5374), the ordering
of the yeas and nays (V, 5376, 5377), decision of the Chair on a question
of order (V, 5378), or reception of a message (V, 5375). The motion to lay
on the table may also be repeated after intervening business (V, 5398–
5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V, 5709), a call of the
House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order have been held not
to be such intervening business, it being essential that the pending matter
be carried to a new stage in order to permit a repetition of the motion
(V, 5709).
Divisibility
5. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a
§ 919. Division of the question shall be divided on the de-
question.
mand of a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner before the question is
put if it includes propositions so distinct in sub-
stance that, one being taken away, a substantive
proposition remains.
(b)(1) A motion or resolution to elect members
to a standing committee of the House, or to a
joint standing committee, is not divisible.
[700]
(2) A resolution or order reported by the Com-

mittee on Rules providing a special order of
business is not divisible.
(c) A motion to strike and insert is not divis-
§ 920. Motion to strike ible, but rejection of a motion to
and insert not
divisible. strike does not preclude another
motion to amend.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) (former clause 6) were first adopted in 1789,
and were amended in 1837 (V, 6107). Paragraph (b)(1) (first part of the
former proviso) was adopted April 2, 1917 (VIII, 2175), and paragraph
(b)(2) (last part of the former proviso) was adopted May 3, 1933 (VIII,
3164). Paragraph (c) (first part of former clause 7) was adopted in 1811,
and amended in 1822 (V, 5767). When the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, former clause 5 of this rule (requiring time of adjourn-
ment to be entered on the Journal) was transferred to clause 2(c)(2) of
rule II, paragraphs (a) and (b) were found in former clause 6, and para-
graph (c) was found in the first part of former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
The House may by adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules suspend the rule providing for the division of a question (VII,
775).
The principle that there must be at least two substantive propositions
in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V,
§ 921. Principles
governing the division 6108–6113), because failure to do so produces difficul-
of the question. ties (III, 1725). The question may not be divided after
it has been put (V, 6162), or after the yeas and nays
have been ordered (V, 6160, 6161); but division of the question may be
demanded after the previous question is ordered (V, 5468, 6149; VIII,
3173). In passing on a demand for division the Chair considers only sub-
stantive propositions and not the merits of the question presented (V,
6122). It seems to be most proper, also, that the division should depend
on grammatical structure rather than on the legislative propositions in-
volved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question presenting two propositions gram-
matically is not divisible if either does not constitute a substantive propo-
sition when considered alone (VII, 3165). Thus a resolution censuring a
Member and adopting a report of a committee thereon, which recommends
censure on the basis of the committee’s findings, is not divisible because
those questions are substantially equivalent (Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 13,
1978, p. 37016); and an adjournment resolution that also authorizes the
receipt of veto messages from the President during the adjournment is
not subject to a division of the question, because the receipt authority would
be nonsensical standing alone (June 30, 1976, p. 21702). However, a concur-
rent resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a division of the
[701]
question if, for example, the resolution grammatically and substantively

relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp. 10185–87), or includes
a separate, hortatory section having its own grammatical and substantive
meaning (Speaker Foley, Mar. 5, 1992, p. 4657).
Decisions have been made that a resolution affecting two individuals
may be divided, although such division may involve a reconstruction of
the text (I, 623; V, 6119–6121). The better practice seems to be, however,
that this reconstruction of the text should be made by the adoption of
a substitute amendment of two branches, rather than by interpretation
of the Chair (II, 1621). But merely formal words, such as ‘‘resolved,’’ may
be supplied by interpretation of the Chair (V, 6114–6118). A resolution
with two resolving clauses separately certifying the contemptuous conduct
of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3040); as is a resolution
with one resolving clause certifying contemptuous conduct of several indi-
viduals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200; contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, § 49.1).
A measure containing a series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a resolu-
tion confirming several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19, 1975, p.
7344) may be divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting discrete
articles may be divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 11064; June 19, 2009,
p. l; Mar. 11, 2010, p. l).
Except on resolutions to elect Members to committees or on resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules providing a special order of business,
where division of the question is prohibited by this clause, a resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules may be divided if otherwise appro-
priate. Thus a resolution reported from that committee establishing several
select committees in grammatically divisible titles, not being a special order
of business, is subject to a demand for a division of the question (Jan.
8, 1987, p. 1036). However, it is not in order to demand a division of a
subject incorporated by reference in the pending text, as when a resolution
to adopt a series of rules, not made a part of the resolution, was before
the House, it was held not in order to demand a separate vote on each
rule (V, 6159).
The question on engrossment and third reading under former clause
1 of rule XXI (current clause 8(c) of rule XVI) is not divisible (Speaker
Foley, Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544); and in voting on the engrossment or passage
of a bill or joint resolution, a separate vote may not be demanded on the
various portions (V, 6144–6146; VIII, 3172), or on the preamble (V, 6147).
Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that
no part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the amend-
ment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943, p.
645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing appropria-
tions) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for different
programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible although pre-
ceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the paragraphs,
and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the prefatory language
before the Chair puts the question thereon (Nov. 8, 1983, p. 31495). A
[702]
division may be demanded on an amendment to strike various unrelated

phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6898). An amendment proposing
to change a figure in one paragraph of an appropriation bill and also to
insert a new (‘‘fetch-back’’) paragraph at another point in the bill is divisible
(July 15, 1993, p. 15843). Absent a contrary order, the question may be
divided on amendments en bloc comprising discrete instructions to amend,
even though unanimous consent has just been granted for the en bloc con-
sideration (July 25, 1990, p. 19174; July 18, 1991, p. 18851).
A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike
and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169), including substitutes for pending
amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887–90; July 2,
1980, pp. 18288–92), although an amendment comprising two discrete in-
structions to strike and insert may be divided (June 4, 1998, p. 5418) and
a perfecting amendment to an amendment may be divided if not in the
form of a motion to strike and insert (V, 6131). When it is proposed to
strike and insert not one but several connected matters, it is not in order
to demand a separate vote on each of those matters (V, 6124, 6125), as
when an amendment in the nature of a substitute containing several reso-
lutions is proposed; but after this amendment has been agreed to, it is
in order to demand a division of the original resolution as amended (V,
6127, 6128). When, however, an amendment simply adding or inserting
is proposed, it is in order to divide the amendment (V, 6129–6133). To
a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a simple motion to
strike the words may not be offered as a substitute, because it would have
the effect of dividing the motion to strike and insert (June 29, 1939, pp.
8282, 8284; June 19, 1979, pp. 15566–68).
A division may be demanded on the motion to recede from disagreement
to a Senate amendment and concur therein (see § 525, supra; V, 6209;
VIII, 3197–3199, 3203), but may not be demanded on Senate amendments
when sending to conference (V, 6151–6156; VIII, 3175). A division of the
question may not be demanded, with respect to a motion to concur in a
Senate amendment with an amendment, between concurring and amend-
ing (VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on separate parts of the pro-
posed amendment if it is not properly divisible under the same tests that
apply to any other amendment (Aug. 3, 1973, pp. 28124–26; Oct. 11, 1984,
p. 32188). Thus a proposed amendment to a Senate amendment is not
divisible if in the form of a motion to strike and insert (Oct. 15, 1986,
p. 32135). Each Senate amendment must be voted on as a whole (VIII,
3175) but the Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate amend-
ment with the recommendation that it be agreed to with an amendment,
a separate vote was had on the amendment to the Senate amendment
(VIII, 2420). When Senate amendments to a House bill are considered in
the House, a separate vote may be had on each amendment (VIII, 2383,
2400, 3191), and separate votes may be had on nongermane portions of
Senate amendments as provided in clause 10 of rule XXII.
[703]
It is not in order to divide a motion to lay several connected propositions

on the table (V, 6138–6140). Similarly, it is not in order to divide a motion
for the previous question on two related propositions, as on a special order
reported from the Committee on Rules and a pending amendment thereto
(Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). An appeal from a decision of the Speaker involv-
ing two distinct questions may be divided (V, 6157).
On a motion to commit with instructions it is not in order to demand
a separate vote on the instructions or various branches thereof (V, 6134–
6137; VIII, 2737, 3170; Speaker Rayburn, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 6157; June
29, 1993, p. 14618). However, an amendment reported forthwith pursuant
to instructions contained in a successful motion to recommit may be divided
on the question of its adoption if composed of substantively and grammati-
cally distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p. 14618; May 28, 2010, p. l).
A motion to recommit a bill to conference with various instructions may
not be divided (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 27681). However, a motion to instruct
conferees under clause 7(c) of rule XXII (when multiple motions are in
order) may be divided (Speaker Byrns, May 26, 1936, p. 7951; Sept. 20,
2000, p. 18622), provided that separate substantive propositions are pre-
sented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p. 4750). A conference report is
considered as a whole (Oct. 8, 2009, p. l).
A division of the question may not be demanded on bills or joint resolu-
tions for reference (IV, 4376) or change of reference (VII, 2125), a motion
to elect Members to committees of the House (VIII, 2175, 3164), a question
against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), or a proposition
under a motion to suspend the rules (V, 6141–6143; VIII, 3171). A propo-
sition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an entire and distinct
amendment may not be divided (IV, 4883–4892). A separate vote may not
be demanded in the House on an amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole to an amendment (VIII, 2422, 2426, 2427).
After the vote on the first portion of the question, the second is open
to debate and amendment, unless the previous question is ordered (see
§ 482, supra). If a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is divided
pursuant to a special rule, the Chair puts the question first on the first
portion of the Senate amendment, and then on the remaining portion (Mar.
4, 1993, p. 4163). If a division of the question is demanded on a portion
of an amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining por-
tions of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is de-
manded remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981,
pp. 24785–89). However, if no further debate or amendment is in order
on the divided portion, the Chair may put the question first on the divided
portion(s) and then immediately on the remaining portion (Aug. 17, 1972,
Deschler, ch. 27, § 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). If a division of the ques-
tion is demanded on more than one portion of an amendment, the Chair
may put the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment
(if any), then (after further debate) on the first part on which a division
is demanded, and then (after further debate) on the last part on which
[704]
a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785–89). If the question on

adopting an amendment is divided by special rule (rather than on demand
from the floor), the Chair puts the question on each divided portion of
the amendment in the order in which it appears (May 23, 1996, p. 12316).
A demand for a division of the question on a separate portion of an
amendment may be withdrawn before the question is put on the first por-
tion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. 15843), but once the Chair has put the ques-
tion on the first portion of the amendment, a demand for a division may
be withdrawn only by unanimous consent (Sept. 9, 1976, pp. 29538–40).
Amendments
6. When an amendable proposition is under
§ 922. Amendments to consideration, a motion to amend
text and to title.
and a motion to amend that amend-
ment shall be in order, and it also shall be in
order to offer a further amendment by way of
substitute for the original motion to amend, to
which one amendment may be offered but which
may not be voted on until the original amend-
ment is perfected. An amendment may be with-
drawn in the House at any time before a deci-
sion or amendment thereon. An amendment to
the title of a bill or resolution shall not be in
order until after its passage or adoption and
shall be decided without debate.
This provision (formerly rule XIX) was adopted in 1880, with an amend-
ment adding the portion in relation to the title in 1893. The rule of 1880,
however, merely stated in form of rule what had been the practice of the
House for many years (V, 5753). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XIX (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For further discussion see Deschler, ch. 27, §§ 15–
19.
It is not in order to offer more than one motion to amend of the same
nature at a time (V, 5755; VIII, 2831), but the four mo-
the motion to amend. tions specified by the rule may be pending at the same
time (V, 5793; VIII, 2883, 2887). Where, pursuant to
a special rule, a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
being read as original text for purpose of amendment, there may be pending
to that text the four stages of amendment permitted by this rule (Apr.
23, 1969, p. 10066). When a request for a recorded vote in the Committee
[705]
of the Whole is postponed under authority of a special order of the House

(such authority now found in clause 6(g) of rule XVIII), the amendment
becomes unfinished business and is no longer pending, thereby permitting
the offering of another amendment (May 10, 2000, p. 7513). An amendment
in the third degree is not specified by the rule and is not permissible (V,
5754; VIII, 2580, 2888, 2891), even when the third degree is in the nature
of a substitute for an amendment to a substitute (V, 5791; VIII, 2889).
An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the portion
of the bill it seeks to amend and is subject to a point of order if not in
proper form (Oct. 3, 1985, p. 25970). An amendment may not propose to
change portions of a measure not yet read for amendment (Mar. 24, 1999,
p. 5418). Under a ‘‘modified-closed’’ rule permitting only amendments
printed in the report accompanying the rule, the Chair will permit an
amendment to be offered in the form actually submitted for printing rather
than requiring that it be offered in the erroneous form printed (Mar. 10,
1994, p. 4405). The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request
to designate a co-offeror of an amendment (May 20, 2004, p. 10631; Sept.
14, 2004, p. 18429).
A Member may not amend or modify his or her own amendment except
by unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25453); and if the Chair recognizes
the proponent of an amendment to propound such a unanimous-consent
request before commencing debate, the Chair does not charge time con-
sumed under a reservation of objection against the proponent’s time for
debate on the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11849).
Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of an amendment may not yield
to another to offer an amendment to the amendment; rather an amendment
to the amendment may be offered after the proponent of the pending
amendment has explained it (Sept. 7, 1995, p. 24071).
Two independent amendments may be voted on at once only by unani-
mous consent of the House (V, 5979). Amendments en bloc, once pending,
are open to perfecting amendment at any point (June 12, 1991, p. 14337).
If a point of order is sustained against a discrete portion of an en bloc
amendment, the entire en bloc amendment may not be considered; how-
ever, each constituent amendment may be offered separately if otherwise
in order (Sept. 16, 1981, pp. 20735–38). An amendment considered with
others en bloc and rejected may be offered separately at a subsequent time
(Deschler, ch. 27, § 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).
The substitute provided for in this rule has been construed as a sub-
stitute for the amendment and not as a substitute for the original text
(VIII, 2883). A substitute amendment may be amended by striking all after
its first word and inserting a new text (V, 5793, 5794). Although this is
in effect a substitute, it is not technically so. A substitute always proposes
to replace all the words of a pending amendment. The amendatory instruc-
tions contained in a substitute direct changes to be made in the original
language rather than to the pending amendment. Although a substitute
may change parts of a bill not changed by the pending amendment, the
[706]
substitute must be germane to the pending amendment (VIII, 2879, 2880;

Deschler, ch. 27, § 18.6). A substitute may result in similar language to
the original text proposed to be changed by the pending amendment, but
may not result in identical language (Deschler, ch. 27, § 18.15). To an
amendment adding a new section, an amendment making perfecting
changes in the bill rather than in the amendment is not a proper perfecting
amendment, but may, if germane, be offered as a substitute for the amend-
ment (Deschler, ch. 27, § 18.7). The Chair will not look behind the form
of the amendment in determining whether it is perfecting or a substitute
(June 13, 1994, p. 12731). Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment
is disposed of, the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open
to further perfecting amendment (June 20, 1991, p. 15610); and all such
amendments are disposed of before voting on substitutes for the original
amendment and amendments thereto (July 26, 1984, p. 21253).
An amendment offered as a substitute and rejected may again be offered
as an original amendment without presenting an equivalent question. In
the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute and
the amendment to which offered, and in the second case the question is
the relationship between the original amendment and the text of the bill
(V, 5797; VIII, 2843). An amendment that is adopted as amended by a
substitute may not be reoffered in its original form if it would directly
change the amended portion of the bill. However, it may be reoffered if
the original amendment amends a different part of the bill (as in the case
in which the amendatory instructions of the substitute displace the lan-
guage of the original amendment). In such a case the vote on the amend-
ment as amended by the substitute is not equivalent to a direct vote on
the original amendment (June 25, 1987, p. 17416). An amendment consid-
ered with others en bloc and rejected may be offered separately at a subse-
quent time (Deschler, ch. 27, § 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).
An amendment in the nature of a substitute always proposes to strike
all after the enacting or resolving words in order to insert a new text (V,
5785, footnote). An amendment in the nature of a substitute may be pro-
posed before amendments to the pending portion of original text have been
acted on, but may not be voted on until such amendments have been dis-
posed of (V, 5787). When a bill is considered by sections or paragraphs
an amendment in the nature of a substitute is properly offered after the
reading for amendment is concluded (V, 5788). However, when it is pro-
posed to offer a single substitute for several paragraphs of a bill that is
being considered by paragraph, the substitute may be moved to the first
paragraph, with notice that, if agreed to, motions will be made to strike
the remaining paragraphs (V, 5795; VIII, 2898, 2900–2903; July 29, 1969,
p. 21218). An amendment in the nature of a substitute, as well as the
original proposition, may be perfected by amendments before the vote on
it is taken (V, 5786). If there is pending an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, it is in order to offer a perfecting amendment to the pending
portion of original text (VIII, 2861; Apr. 27, 1976, p. 11411; see also Desch-
[707]
ler, ch. 27, § 5.34). An amendment in the nature of a substitute having

been agreed to, the vote is then taken on the original proposition as amend-
ed (II, 983; V, 5799, 5800), and no further amendment is in order (Speaker
O’Neill, Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6274). If a perfecting amendment to an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute, striking all after the short title and
inserting a new text, is agreed to, further amendments to the text so per-
fected are not in order, but amendments are in order to add new language
at the end of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended
(May 16, 1979, p. 11420).
Except as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI, a point of order
§ 924. Relation of point
against an amendment is timely if made or reserved
of order to motion to before formal recognition of the proponent to commence
amend. debate thereon (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; July 15, 1997,
pp. 14492, 14493), but thereafter comes too late (V,
6894, 6898–6899) unless the Member was on his or her feet seeking recogni-
tion for that purpose at the time the amendment was offered (July 28,
1995, p. 20897; May 25, 2006, p. 9823). To preclude a point of order, debate
should be on the merits of the proposition (V, 6901). The mere making
of a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the reading of an amend-
ment and to revise and extend remarks thereon is not such intervening
business as would render a point of order untimely under this clause, if
the Member making the point of order is on his or her feet seeking recogni-
tion (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Deschler-Brown, ch. 31, §§ 6.39, 6.41).
When enough of an amendment has been read to show that it is out of
order, a point of order may be raised without waiting for the reading to
be completed (V, 6886–6887; VIII, 2912, 3437; July 9, 2009, p. l), though
the Chair may decline to rule until the entire proposition has been read
(Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41716–18). A timely reservation of a point of order
by one Member inures to the benefit of any other Member who desires
to raise a point of order (V, 6906; July 18, 1990, p. 17930).
Although the rule provides that either an ordinary or substitute amend-
§ 925. Withdrawal of
ment may be withdrawn in the House (V, 5753) or ‘‘in
the motion to amend. the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ (IV, 4935;
June 26, 1973, p. 21315), it may not be withdrawn or
modified in Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent (clause
5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859).
Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question
takes precedence of a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971,
the motion to amend. p. 39944); and if the previous question is not ordered,
the motion to refer also has precedence of the motion
to amend (V, 5555; VI, 373). Amendments reported by a committee are
acted on before those offered from the floor (V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 2863),
but a floor amendment to the text of a pending section is considered before
a committee amendment adding a new section at the end of the pending
section (Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33779–82), and there is a question as to the
extent to which the chair of the committee reporting a bill should be recog-
[708]
nized preferentially to offer amendments to perfect it over other Members

(II, 1450). Amendments may not be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830). The mo-
tion to strike the enacting clause has precedence of the motion to amend,
and may be offered while an amendment is pending (V, 5328–5331; VIII,
2622–2624); but the motion to amend takes precedence over a motion that
the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill with the recommenda-
tion that it pass (July 27, 1937, p. 7699).
With some exceptions an amendment may attach itself to secondary or
§ 927. Relation of the
privileged motions (V, 5754). Thus, the motions to post-
motion to amend to pone, refer, amend, for a recess, and to fix the day to
other motions. which the House shall adjourn may be amended (V,
5754; VIII, 2824). But the motions for the previous
question, to lay on the table, to adjourn (V, 5754) and to go into Committee
of the Whole to consider a privileged bill may not be amended (IV, 3078,
3079; VI, 723–725).
An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in Committee of the
Whole (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 682).
Germaneness
7. No motion or proposition on a subject dif-
§ 928. Germane ferent from that under consider-
amendments.
ation shall be admitted under color
of amendment.
This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825).
and clause 5(c) occupied a single former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
It introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary
law (V, 5825), but of high value in the procedure of the House (V, 5866).
Before the adoption of rules, when the House is operating under general
parliamentary law, as modified by the usage and practice of the House,
an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not germane
to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). The principle of
the rule applies to a proposition by which it is proposed to modify the
pending bill, and not to a portion of the bill itself (V, 6929); thus a point
of order will not lie that an appropriation in a general appropriation bill
is not germane to the rest of the bill (Dec. 16, 1963, p. 24753). In general,
an amendment simply striking words already in a bill may not be ruled
out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII, 2918) unless such action would expand
the scope and meaning of the text (VIII, 2917–2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p.
6381); and a pro forma amendment ‘‘to strike the last word’’ has been
considered germane (July 28, 1965, p. 18639). Although a committee may
report a bill or resolution embracing different subjects, it is not in order
during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way of
[709]
amendment (V, 5825). The rule that amendments should be germane ap-
plies to amendments reported by committees (V, 5806), but a resolution
providing for consideration of the bill with committee amendments may
waive points of order (Oct. 10, 1967, p. 28406), and the point of order
under this rule does not apply to a special order reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules ‘‘self-executing’’ the adoption in the House of a nongermane
amendment to a bill, because the amendment is not separately before the
House during consideration of the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542;
July 27, 1993, p. 17117). A resolution reported from the Committee on
Rules providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a certain subject
may be amended neither by an amendment that would substitute the con-
sideration of a different proposition (V, 5834–5836; VIII, 2956; Sept. 14,
1950, p. 14844) nor by an amendment that would permit the additional
consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill (May 29, 1980, pp.
12667–73; Aug. 13, 1982, p. 20972). The Chair will not interpret as a point
of order under a specific rule of the House an objection to a substitute
as narrowing the scope of a pending amendment, absent some stated or
necessarily implied reference to germaneness or other rule (June 25, 1987,
p. 17415). The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to
establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995; July 10, 2000, p. 13605), and if an
amendment is equally susceptible to more than one interpretation, one
of which will render it not germane, the Chair will rule it out of order
(June 20, 1975, p. 19967). The Chair will not render an advisory opinion
on whether a pending amendment is germane, there being no occasion
for a ruling (Apr. 6, 2011, p. l).
Under the later practice an amendment should be germane to the par-
§ 929. Proposition to
ticular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V,
which amendment 5811–5820; VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194,
must be germane. 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 24729), without reference to
subject matter of other titles not yet read (July 31,
1990, p. 20816), and an amendment inserting an additional section should
be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is offered (V, 5822; VIII,
2927, 2931; July 14, 1970, pp. 24033–35), though it may be germane to
more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, p. 8508), and when offered
as a separate paragraph is not required to be germane to the paragraph
immediately preceding or following it (VII, 1162; VIII, 2932–2935).
The test of germaneness in the case of a motion to recommit with instruc-
tions is the relationship of the instructions to the bill taken as a whole
(and not merely to the separate portion of the bill specifically proposed
to be amended in the instructions) (Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6932). A special order
of business directing that certain matter be added to the engrossment of
a bill does not operate until passage of that bill (Mar. 5, 2008, p. l).
Subject to clause 2(c) of rule XXI (requiring that limitation amendments
to general appropriation bills be offered at the end of the reading of the
bill for amendment), an amendment limiting the use of funds by a par-
ticular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may be germane to
[710]
the paragraph carrying the funds, or to any general provisions portion

of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the bill (July
16, 1979, p. 18807). However, to a paragraph containing funds for an agen-
cy but not transferring funds to that account from other paragraphs in
the bill, an amendment increasing that amount by transfer from an account
in another paragraph is not germane, because affecting budget authority
for a different agency not the subject of the pending paragraph (July 17,
1985, p. 19436). Similarly, an amendment to a general appropriation bill
in the form of a limitation on funds therein but extending to activities
prescribed by laws unrelated to the functions of departments and agencies
addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).
In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers
the relationship between the amendment and the bill as modified by the
Committee of the Whole (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11545; July 8, 1987, p. 19013).
An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but if a bill
is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an amendment
must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular section
(Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). If a title of a bill is
open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an amendment per-
fecting one section therein depends on its relationship to the title as a
whole and not merely on its relationship to the one section (June 25, 1991,
p. 16152). An amendment in the form of a new title, when offered at the
end of a bill containing several diverse titles on a general subject, need
not be germane to the portion of the bill to which offered, it being sufficient
that the amendment be germane to the bill as a whole in its modified
form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267; July 2, 1974, p. 22029; Sept. 18, 1975, p.
29322; July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548–51). Although the
heading of the final title of a bill as ‘‘miscellaneous’’ does not thereby permit
amendments to that title that are not germane thereto, the inclusion of
sufficiently diverse provisions in such title affecting various provisions in
the bill may permit further amendments that need only be germane to
the bill as a whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034–37).
Under clause 10 of rule XXII, a portion of a conference report incor-
porating part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to a
House bill, or incorporating part of a Senate bill that the House has amend-
ed, must be germane to the bill in the form passed by the House; thus
where a House-passed bill contained several sections and titles amending
diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to tax credits, a
modified Senate provision adding a new section dealing with another tax
credit was held germane to the House-passed measure as a whole (Speaker
Albert, Mar. 26, 1975, p. 8900); but a Senate provision in a conference
report on a Senate bill with a House amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute which authorized appointment of a special prosecutor for any crimi-
nal offenses committed by certain Federal officials was held not germane
to the House-passed bill, which related to offenses directly related to official
[711]
duties and responsibilities of Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459–
61).
The test of germaneness of an amendment to or a substitute for an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship to the substitute
and not its relationship to the bill to which the amendment in the nature
of a substitute has been offered (July 19, 1973, p. 24958; July 22, 1975,
p. 23990; June 1, 1976, pp. 16051–56; July 28, 1982, pp. 18355–58, 18361),
and an amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the same page
and line numbers as the substitute in order to be germane, it being suffi-
cient that the amendment is germane to the subject matter of the substitute
(Aug. 1, 1979, pp. 21944–47). When an amendment in the nature of a
substitute is offered at the end of the first section of a bill, the test of
germaneness is the relationship between the amendment and the entire
bill, and the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute
for a bill is not necessarily determined by an incidental portion of the
amendment that, if offered separately, might not be germane to the portion
of the bill to which offered (July 8, 1975, p. 21633).
The test of germaneness of an amendment offered as a substitute for
a pending amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and
not its relationship to the underlying bill (Feb. 14, 1995, p. 4714).
An amendment germane to the bill as a whole, but hardly germane to
any one section, may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of
motions to strike the following sections that it would supersede (V, 5823;
July 29, 1969, p. 21221). If a perfecting amendment to the text is offered
pending a vote on a motion to strike the same text, the perfecting amend-
ment must be germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion
to strike (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28454).
The rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments
§ 930. Instructions to
to the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees
committees and (VIII, 3230, 3235), and the test of germaneness of an
amendments thereto. amendment to a motion to instruct conferees, in addi-
tion to the measurement of scope of conference, is the
relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or Senate
version of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 28.2). The rule of germaneness
similarly applies to the instructions in a motion to recommit a bill to a
committee of the House, because it is not in order to propose as part of
a motion to recommit any proposition that would not have been germane
if proposed as an amendment to the bill in the House (V, 5529–5541; VIII,
2708–2712; Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155), and the instructions must be germane
to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30513), even if
the instructions do not propose a direct amendment to the bill but merely
direct the committee to pursue an unrelated approach (Speaker O’Neill,
Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. 18397) or direct the committee
not to report the bill back to the House until an unrelated contingency
occurs (VIII, 2704). Under the same rationale as amendments to a motion
to instruct conferees, amendments to a motion to recommit to a standing
[712]
committee with instructions must be germane to the subject matter of the

bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711).
The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion
to recommit a bill with instructions to a standing committee does not affect
the requirement that the subject matter of the amendment be germane
and within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2,
1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. 18397).
In the consideration of Senate amendments to a House bill an amend-
§ 931. Senate
ment must be germane to the particular Senate amend-
amendments and ment to which it is offered (V, 6188–6191; VIII, 2936;
matter contained in May 14, 1963, p. 8506; Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and
conference reports. it is not sufficient that an amendment to a Senate
amendment is germane to the original House bill if it
is not germane to the subject matter of a Senate amendment that merely
inserts new matter and does not strike House provisions (V, 6188; VIII,
2936). But if a Senate amendment proposes to strike language in a House
bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with
an amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as
those to be inserted, by the Senate amendment (June 8, 1943, p. 5511;
June 15, 1943, p. 5899; Dec. 12, 1974, p. 39272). The test of the germane-
ness of an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with
an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion,
and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which
the motion has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 27.6).
Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of order that
it was not germane to the House bill (VIII, 3425), but under changes in
the rules points of order may be made and separate votes demanded on
portions of Senate amendments and conference reports containing lan-
guage that would not have been germane if offered in the House. Clause
10 of rule XXII permits points of order against language in a conference
report that was originally in the Senate bill or amendment and that would
not have been germane if offered to the House-passed version, and permits
a separate motion to reject such portion of the conference report if found
nongermane (Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31498). For purposes of that rule, the House-
passed version, against which Senate provisions are compared, is that fi-
nally committed to conference, taking into consideration all amendments
adopted by the House, including House amendments to Senate amend-
ments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of rule XXII permits points
of order against motions to concur or concur with amendment in non-
germane Senate amendments, the stage of disagreement having been
reached, and, if such points of order are sustained, permits separate mo-
tions to reject such nongermane matter. Clause 10 of rule XXII is not appli-
cable to a provision contained in a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment (the stage of disagreement having been reached) that is not
contained in any form in the Senate version, the only requirement in such
[713]
circumstances being that the motion as a whole be germane to the Senate

amendment as a whole under clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, pp. 33502–
06; June 30, 1987, p. 18294).
An amendment must relate to the subject matter under consideration.
§ 932. Subject matter
Thus, the following are not germane: to a bill seeking
as test of to eliminate wage discrimination based on the sex of
germaneness. the employee, an amendment to make the provisions
of the bill applicable to discrimination based on race
(July 25, 1962, p. 14778); to a bill establishing an office in the Department
of the Interior to manage biological information, an amendment addressing
socioeconomic matters (Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26082); to a bill authorizing mili-
tary assistance to Israel and funds for the United Nations emergency force
in the Middle East, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that
the President conduct negotiations to obtain a peace treaty in the Middle
East and the resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between Arab
nations and the United States and Israel (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40842); to
a concurrent resolution expressing congressional concern over certain do-
mestic policies of a foreign government and urging that government to
improve those internal problems in order to enhance better relations with
the United States, amendments expressing the necessity for United States
diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government’s policies
(July 12, 1978, pp. 20500–05); to a resolution amending several clauses
of a rule of the House but confined in its scope to the issue of access to
committee hearings and meetings, an amendment to another clause of that
rule relating to committee staffing (Mar. 7, 1973, p. 6714); to a title of
a bill that only addresses the administrative structure of a new department
and not its authority to carry out transferred programs, an amendment
prohibiting the department from withholding funds to carry out certain
objectives (June 12, 1979, p. 14485); to an amendment authorizing the
use of funds for a specific study, an amendment naming any program estab-
lished in the bill for an unrelated purpose for a specified Senator (Aug.
15, 1986, p. 22075); to one of two reconciliation bills reported by the Budget
Committee, an amendment making a prospective indirect change to the
other reconciliation bill not then pending before the House (June 25, 1997,
p. 12488); to a joint resolution continuing appropriations for the current
fiscal year, a motion to recommit with instructions to revise the reconcili-
ation instructions in the concurrent resolution on the budget (Sept. 29,
2005, p. 21795); to a general appropriation bill, an amendment in the form
of a limitation on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions
of departments and agencies addressed by the bill (July 10, 2000, p. 13605);
to a bill reauthorizing the National Sea Grant College Program, a proposal
to amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation of appropria-
tions in the absence of timely enactment of a regular appropriation bill
(June 18, 1997, p. 11333); to a bill regulating immigration, an amendment
reaffirming an agreement with Japan (VIII, 3050); to a bill opposing
concessional loans to a country and outlining principles governing the con-
[714]
duct of industrial cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country,

an amendment waiving provisions of other law by requiring changes in
tariff schedules to achieve overall trade reciprocity between that country
and the United States (Nov. 6, 1997, p. 24824); to a resolution authorizing
the deployment of troops to implement a peace agreement, an amendment
expressing support for the armed forces in carrying out such mission (Mar.
11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill addressing enforcement of State liquor laws,
an amendment addressing enforcement of State firearm laws (Aug. 3, 1999,
p. 19213); to a bill addressing taxation under the Internal Revenue Code,
a motion to recommit with instructions extending unemployment insurance
benefits (May 9, 2003, p. 11110 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board, an amendment
extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 15, 2003, p. 11955 (sus-
tained on appeal)); to an immigration bill addressing (1) issues of admissi-
bility, detention, removal, and deportation of various classes of aliens (Sept.
21, 2006, pp. 18860 0962 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or (2) improve-
ments in enforcement and judicial proceedings (Sept. 21, 2006, p. 18876
0978), a motion to recommit with instructions proposing an increase in
the number of U.S. Marshals; to a bill confined to housing-related matters,
an amendment providing funding for various infrastructure projects (May
17, 2007, pp. 13224, 13225); to a bill settling land claims of two tribal
communities in a state, a motion to recommit with instructions broaching
fuel procurement by federal agencies (June 25, 2008, p. l (sustained by
tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing economic stabilization and assist-
ance funds and housing matters, a motion to recommit with instructions
addressing the solvency of various Social Security trust funds (Jan. 21,
2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing small
business investment programs, a motion to recommit with instructions ex-
pressing the sense of the House on the consideration of appropriation bills
(July 8, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing
water recycling projects in one geographic area, a motion to recommit with
instructions addressing water availability under a project in a different
geographic area (Oct. 15, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal));
to a bill confined to one mortgage refinancing program, an amendment
(1) adding findings regarding mortgages more broadly (Mar. 10, 2011, p.
l), (2) establishing a new mortgage refinancing program (Mar. 10, 2011,
p. l), (3) requiring a study of mortgages more broadly (Mar. 10, 2011,
p. l), (4) addressing foreclosure generally (Mar. 10, 2011, p. l), and (5)
addressing compensation within the financial services industry (Mar. 10,
2011, p. l); to a joint resolution disapproving a Federal Communications
Commission regulation, a motion to recommit with instructions further
continuing appropriations for the current fiscal year (Apr. 8, 2011, p. l
(sustained by tabling of appeal)).
An amendment that is germane, not being ‘‘on a subject different from
that under consideration,’’ belongs to a class illustrated by the following:
to a bill providing for an interoceanic canal by one route, an amendment
[715]
providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill providing for the reorga-
nization of the Army, an amendment providing for the encouragement of
marksmanship by enlisted personnel (V, 5910); to a proposition to create
a board of inquiry, an amendment specifying when it shall report (V, 5915);
to a bill relating to ‘‘oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products,’’
an amendment on the subject of ‘‘renovated butter’’ (V, 5919); to a resolu-
tion rescinding an order for final adjournment, an amendment fixing a
new date therefor (V, 5920); to a proposition directing a feasibility inves-
tigation, an amendment requiring the submission of legislation to imple-
ment that investigation (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41747); and to a section of a
bill prescribing the functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by
conferring wide discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amend-
ment directing the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines
for citizen fuel use (as a further delineation of those functions) (Mar. 6,
1974, p. 5436).
A bill comprehensively addressing a subject requires careful analysis
to determine whether an amendment addresses a different subject. For
example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute comprehensively
amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with respect to the impact
of shortages of energy resources on standards imposed under that Act,
an amendment to another section of the Act suspending temporarily the
authority of the Administrator of the EPA to control automobile emissions
was held germane (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41688). On the other hand, to a bill
comprehensively restructuring the production and distribution of food, an
amendment proposed in a motion to recommit to provide nutrition assist-
ance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs, was held not ger-
mane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).
The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the
§ 933. Fundamental
fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair
purpose as test of discerns the fundamental purpose of a bill by exam-
germaneness. ining the text of the bill and its report language (Desch-
ler-Brown, ch. 28, § 5.6; Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213), rather
than the motives that circumstances may suggest (V, 5783, 5803; Dec.
13, 1973, pp. 41267–69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438). To a bill that comprehen-
sively addresses a subject, an amendment that relates to that subject mat-
ter may not be ruled out as nongermane merely because the amendment
may be characterized as private legislation benefitting certain individuals
offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984, p. 14495). Similarly, to a bill pro-
posing to accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to achieve the same result
was held germane where it was shown that additional provisions not con-
tained in the original bill were merely incidental conditions or exceptions
that were related to the fundamental purpose of the bill (Aug. 2, 1973,
pp. 27673–75; July 8, 1975, p. 21633; Sept. 29, 1980, pp. 27832–52). On
the other hand, an amendment may relate to the same subject matter
yet still stray from adherence to a common fundamental purpose. For ex-
[716]
ample, an amendment singling out one constituent element of a larger

subject for specific and unrelated scrutiny is not germane. Thus, to a bill
authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal court
against a person who has violated a State law regulating intoxicating liq-
uor, an amendment singling out certain violations of liquor laws on the
basis of their regard for any and all firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213).
Similarly, to a bill appropriating for only one fiscal year (and containing
no provisions extending beyond that fiscal year), an amendment to extend
an appropriation to another fiscal year is not germane (June 20, 2001,
pp. 11233, 11234).
In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the same
end as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a method
of achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed
in the bill or other matter sought to be amended (Aug. 11, 1970, p. 28165).
Thus the following are germane: to a bill raising revenue by several meth-
ods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed profits
(the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042); to a propo-
sition to accomplish a result through regulation by a governmental agency,
an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental purpose through regu-
lation by another governmental agency (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1572–89; June
9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42618); to a bill to achieve a certain
purpose by conferring discretionary authority to set fair labor standards
upon an independent agency, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
to attain that purpose by a more inflexible method (prescribing fair labor
standards) (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1590–94; Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27885); to a propo-
sition to accomplish the broad purpose of settling land claims of Alaska
natives by a method general in scope, an amendment accomplishing the
same purpose by a method more detailed in its provisions (Oct. 20, 1971,
p. 37079); to an amendment comprehensively amending the Natural Gas
Act to deregulate interstate sales of new natural gas and regulate aspects
of intrastate gas use, a substitute providing regulatory authority for inter-
state and intrastate gas sales of large producers (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387);
to a bill providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an amend-
ment achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent
authority was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were
based on reported economic projections under which either would achieve
the same, necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect
amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344); to a bill
subjecting employers who fail to apprise their workers of health risks to
penalties under other laws and regulations, a substitute subjecting such
employers to penalties prescribed in the substitute itself (Oct. 14, 1987,
p. 27885); to an amendment freezing the obligation of funds for fiscal year
1996 for missile defense until the Secretary of Defense rendered a specified
readiness certification, an amendment permitting an increase in the obliga-
tion of such funds on the basis of legislative findings concerning readiness,
because each proposition addressed the relationship between 1996 funding
[717]
levels for missile defense and readiness (Feb. 15, 1995, p. 5026); to a bill
improving food safety through a myriad of methods including the tracing
of food origins, recalls of food, and quarantine of food, a motion to recommit
with instructions allowing the preemptive purchase of food related to activi-
ties in the bill (July 30, 2009, p. l).
However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unre-
lated method not contemplated by the bill is not germane. Thus, the fol-
lowing are not germane: to a bill providing relief to foreign countries
through government agencies, an amendment providing for relief to be
made through the International Red Cross (Dec. 10, 1947, pp. 11242–44);
to a bill to aid in the control of crime through research and training, an
amendment to accomplish that result through regulation of the sale of
firearms (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846–50); to a bill providing assistance to
Vietnam war victims, amendments containing foreign policy declarations
as to culpability in the war (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11510); to a bill conserving
energy by civil penalties on manufacturers of autos with low gas mileage,
an amendment conserving energy by tax rebates to purchasers of high-
mileage autos (June 12, 1975, p. 18695); to a proposition whose funda-
mental purpose was registration and public disclosure by, but not regula-
tion of the activities of, lobbyists, amendments prohibiting lobbying in cer-
tain places, restricting monetary contributions by lobbyists, and providing
civil penalties for violating Rules of the House in relation to floor privileges
(Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33070) (but to a similar bill, an amendment requiring
disclosure of any lobbying communication made on the floor of the House
or Senate or in adjoining rooms, but not regulating such conduct, was held
germane (Apr. 26, 1978, p. 11641)); to a bill seeking to accomplish a purpose
by one method (creation of an executive branch agency), an amendment
accomplishing that result by a method not contemplated in the bill (cre-
ation of office within legislative branch as function of committee oversight)
(Nov. 5, 1975, p. 35041); to a bill authorizing foreign military assistance
programs, an amendment authorizing contributions to an international
agency for nuclear missile inspections (Mar. 3, 1976, p. 5226); to a joint
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for representation of the
District of Columbia in Congress, a motion to recommit with instructions
that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution retroceding pop-
ulated portions of the District to Maryland (Speaker O’Neill, Mar. 2, 1978,
p. 5272, implicitly overruling V, 5582); to a bill prohibiting poll taxes, a
motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the committee report
it back in the form of a joint resolution amending the Constitution to accom-
plish the purpose of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 23.8); to an amend-
ment to achieve a national production goal for synthetic fuels for national
defense needs by loans and grants and development of demonstration syn-
thetic fuel plants, a substitute to require by regulation that any fuel sold
in commerce require a certain percentage of synthetic fuels (also broader
in scope) (June 26, 1979, pp. 16663–74); to a bill to provide financial assist-
ance to domestic agriculture through price support payments, an amend-
[718]
ment to protect domestic agriculture by restricting imports in competition

therewith (also within the jurisdiction of another committee) (Oct. 14, 1981,
p. 23899); to a bill authorizing financial assistance to unemployed individ-
uals for employment opportunities, an amendment providing instead for
tax incentives to stimulate employment (also within the jurisdiction of a
different committee) (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill relating to one
government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose
a change in the law relating to another agency, even though it contemplated
a consultative role for the agency covered by the bill (July 8, 1987, p. 19014);
to a proposition changing congressional budget procedures to require con-
sideration of balanced budgets, an amendment changing concurrent resolu-
tions on the budget to joint resolutions, thereby bringing executive enforce-
ment mechanisms into play (July 18, 1990, p. 17920); to a bill to promote
technological advancement by fostering Federal research and development,
and amendment exhorting to do so by changes in tax and antitrust laws
(July 16, 1991, p. 18397); to a bill extending unemployment compensation
benefits during a period of economic recession, an amendment to stimulate
economic growth by tax incentives and regulatory reform (Sept. 17, 1991,
p. 23156); to a bill providing new budget authority, a motion to recommit
with instructions to change a direct appropriation of new budget authority
from the general fund into a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds
previously appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special re-
serve account (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill addressing substance abuse
through prevention and treatment, an amendment imposing civil penalties
on drug dealers (Sept. 16, 1998, p. 20587); to a resolution impeaching the
President, an amendment censuring the President (Dec. 19, 1998, p.
28107); to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil action
in Federal court against a person who has violated a State law regulating
intoxicating liquor, an amendment creating new Federal laws to regulate
intoxicating liquor (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19216); to a bill addressing persons
convicted of sex offenses against children with criminal punishment, an
amendment addressing such perpetrators by treatment and rehabilitation
(Mar. 14, 2002, p. 3203).
An amendment when considered as a whole should be within the jurisdic-
§ 934. Committee
tion of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976,
jurisdiction as test of p. 1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601–03; June 27, 1985,
germaneness. pp. 17417–19), although committee jurisdiction over
the subject of an amendment and of the original bill
is not the exclusive test of germaneness (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673–75), and
the Chair relates the amendment to the bill in its perfected form (Aug.
17, 1972, p. 28913). Thus, the following are not germane: to a bill reported
from the Committee on Agriculture providing price support programs for
various agricultural commodities, an amendment repealing price control
authority for all commodities under an act reported from the Committee
on Banking and Currency (July 19, 1973, p. 24950); to a bill reported from
the Committee on Ways and Means providing for a temporary increase
[719]
in the public debt ceiling for the current fiscal year (not directly amending
the Second Liberty Bond Act), an amendment proposing permanent
changes in that Act and also affecting budget and appropriation procedures
(matters within the jurisdiction of other House committees) (Nov. 7, 1973,
p. 36240); to a bill relating to intelligence activities of the executive branch,
an amendment effecting a change in the Rules of the House by directing
a committee to impose an oath of secrecy on its members and staff (May
1, 1991, p. 9669); to a joint resolution continuing appropriations for the
current fiscal year, a motion to recommit with instructions to revise the
reconciliation instructions in the concurrent resolution on the budget (Sept.
29, 2005, p. 21795); to a bill reported by the Committee on Government
Operations creating an executive agency to protect consumers, an amend-
ment conferring on congressional committees with oversight over consumer
protection the authority to intervene in judicial or administrative pro-
ceedings (a rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Rules) (Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the Com-
mittee on Public Works and Transportation authorizing funds for local
public works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of al-
ready appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of such
funds under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974) and to set discount
rates for reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the juris-
dictions of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and Insular
Affairs (May 3, 1977, p. 13242); to a bill reported from the Committee
on Armed Services authorizing military procurement and personnel
strengths for one fiscal year, an amendment imposing permanent prohibi-
tions and conditions on troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea be-
cause including statements of policy within the jurisdiction of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp. 15293–95); to a bill reported
from the Committee on Government Operations creating a new depart-
ment, transferring the administration of existing laws to it, and author-
izing appropriations to carry out the Act subject to provisions in existing
law, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds so authorized to carry
out a designated funding program transferred to the department, where
the purpose of the authorization is to allow appropriations in general ap-
propriation bills for the department to carry out its functions but where
changes in the laws to be administered by the department remain within
the jurisdiction of other committees of the House (June 19, 1979, p. 15570);
to a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works authorizing funds
for highway construction and mass transportation systems using motor
vehicles, an amendment relating to urban mass transit (then within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and the railroad
industry (then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce) (Oct. 5, 1972, p. 34115); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs designating certain areas in
a State as wilderness, an amendment providing unemployment benefits
to workers displaced by the designation (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); to a bill
[720]
reported from the Committee on Science and Technology authorizing envi-

ronmental research and development activities of an agency, an amend-
ment expressing the sense of Congress with respect to that agency’s regu-
latory and enforcement authority, within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce (Feb. 9, 1984, p. 2423); to a bill authorizing
environmental research and development activities of an agency for two
years, an amendment adding permanent regulatory authority for that
agency by amending a law not within the jurisdiction of the committee
reporting the bill (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); to a bill reported from the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor dealing with education, an amendment
regulating telephone communications (a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce) (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a
bill addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment
addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation (July 16,
1991, p. 18391; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26734, 26741); to a bill reported from
the Committee on Ways and Means addressing unemployment compensa-
tion, an amendment addressing stimuli for economic growth involving the
jurisdictions of the Committees on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs
and the Judiciary (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23177); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Armed Services amending several laws within that commit-
tee’s jurisdiction on military procurement and policy, an amendment to
the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and not solely related to military
contracts (June 26, 1985, pp. 17417–19) and an amendment requiring re-
ports on Soviet Union compliance with arms control commitments, a matter
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
(Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 4.26); to a bill reported from the Committee
on Energy and Commerce relating to mentally ill individuals, an amend-
ment prohibiting the use of general revenue sharing funds (within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations) (Jan. 30, 1986,
p. 1053); to a bill reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries authorizing various activities of the Coast Guard, an amendment
urging the Secretary of State in consultation with the Coast Guard to elicit
cooperation from other nations concerning certain Coast Guard and mili-
tary operations (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs) (July 8, 1987, p. 19013); to a bill reported by the Committee
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealing with housing and commu-
nity development grant and credit programs, an amendment expressing
the sense of Congress on tax policy (the deductibility of mortgage interest),
a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means
(Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21256); to a bill reported from the Committee on Education
and Labor authorizing a variety of civilian national service programs, an
amendment establishing a contingent military service obligation (a matter
within the selective service jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); to a bill reauthorizing programs adminis-
tered by two agencies within one committee’s jurisdiction, an amendment
[721]
more general in scope affecting agencies within the jurisdiction of other

committees (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to a bill reported by the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure reforming and privatizing Amtrak,
an amendment rescinding previously appropriated funds for certain admin-
istrative expenses, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35071); to a measure expressing a sense
of Congress with respect to the availability of public funds for expenses
incurred in the evaluation of a problem, an amendment addressing legisla-
tive responses to that problem, within the jurisdiction of other committees
(Feb. 4, 1998, p. 794); to a bill reported from Government Reform and
Oversight proposing to alter responsibilities of executive branch agencies
under an existing law, an amendment proposing to extend the application
of that law to entities of the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdic-
tion of the Committee on House Administration (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389);
to a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace
agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
an amendment expressing support for the armed forces carrying such mis-
sion within the jurisdiction of both the Committees on Armed Services
and Foreign Affairs (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill addressing certain
diplomatic efforts to curb alleged price-fixing in the global oil market within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, an amendment pro-
posing to suspend oil exportation through changes to the Mineral Leasing
Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources and
an amendment proposing to change the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act to reauthorize Presidential authority to draw down the strategic petro-
leum reserve, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce (Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3281); to a bill confined to tax issues
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, a motion
to recommit with instructions to report an amendment addressing the min-
imum wage, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Edu-
cation and the Workforce (June 22, 2006, p. 12298 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)), or vice versa (Jan. 10, 2007, p. 787 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); to several individual bills on various topics within the jurisdiction
of various other committees, an amendment addressing the Foreign Intel-
ligence Surveillance Act of 1978, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intel-
ligence (July 12, 2007, pp. 18843, 18844; Feb. 26, 2008, p. l; Feb. 27,
2008, p. l; Mar. 5, 2008, p. l; Mar. 6, 2008, p. l (in each case sustained
by tabling of appeal); Apr. 16, 2008, p. l (sustained on appeal)); to a bill
studying two rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and issues re-
lated thereto, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Re-
sources, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing comprehensive
energy legislation touching several other committees’ jurisdictions (Sept.
10, 2008, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill confined to taxation
issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, a
motion to recommit with instructions addressing laws within the jurisdic-
[722]
tion of the Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Education

and Labor (Sept. 26, 2008, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a
bill addressing payments to physicians under the Medicare program and
confined to the jurisdiction of the Committees on Energy and Commerce
and Ways and Means, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing
medical malpractice reform within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary (Nov. 19, 2009, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to
a defense authorization bill addressing subjects in the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Armed Services and several other committees, a motion to
recommit with instructions broaching benefits of legislative branch employ-
ees within the jurisdiction of another committee (the Committee on House
Administration) (May 28, 2010, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal));
to a bill addressing various benefits in the jurisdiction of committees other
than the Committee on Appropriations, an amendment proposed in a mo-
tion to recommit rescinding appropriations carried in a prior appropriation
Act (July 1, 2010, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing
a mortgage refinancing program within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Financial Services, an amendment modifying an income tax deduction
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mar. 10,
2011, p. l).
Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where: (1)
the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive
(overlapping several committees’ jurisdictions) as to diminish the
pertinency of that test; (2) the amendment does not demonstrably affect
a law within another committee’s jurisdiction (July 21, 1976, p. 23167;
Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548–51); (3) the portion of the bill also contains lan-
guage, related to the amendment, not within the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee reporting the bill (Apr. 2, 1976, p. 9254; Aug. 10, 1984, p. 23975);
or (4) the bill has been amended to include matter within the jurisdiction
of another committee thus rendering further similar amendments germane
(July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 24769). Thus, to a bill reported
from the Committee on Agriculture relating to the food stamp program,
an amendment requiring the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, to collect from certain recipients the
monetary value of food stamps received was held germane because the
performance of new duties by the Secretary of the Treasury and by the
Internal Revenue Service not affecting the application of the Internal Rev-
enue Code is not a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Ways and Means (July 27, 1977, pp. 25249–52). On the other hand,
to a comprehensive farm bill authorizing a variety of programs within the
jurisdiction of the Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs, and
amended to include matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce (but not amending laws within the jurisdiction of
other committees), an amendment proposing to alter an existing interstate
dairy compact and grant consent to additional compacts, matters within
[723]
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, is not germane (Oct.

4, 2001, pp. 18797, 18809).
To a bill amending an existing law to grant to merchant mariners bene-
fits substantially equivalent to those granted to veterans in a separate
law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment directly chang-
ing the separate law to extend its benefits to merchant mariners was held
not germane (Sept. 9, 1992, p. 23951); but if the pending bill incorporates
by reference provisions of a law from another committee and conditions
the bill’s effectiveness upon actions taken pursuant to a section of that
law, an amendment to alter that section of the law may be germane (Apr.
8, 1974, pp. 10108–10).
The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not nec-
essarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amend-
ment that, if considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of
another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976, pp. 16021–25).
However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a point of order
that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
would not have been germane if offered separately to the bill as introduced
(May 23, 1978, pp. 15094–96; May 24, 1978, pp. 15293–95; Aug. 11, 1978,
p. 25705).
The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion
to recommit a bill with instructions does not affect the requirement that
the subject matter of the amendment be germane and within the jurisdic-
tion of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155). Thus the
following are not germane: to a bill reported from the Committee on Foreign
Affairs addressing U.S. claims against Iraq, a motion to recommit with
instructions to prohibit the admission of former members of Iraq’s armed
forces to the United States as refugees (a matter within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on the Judiciary) (Apr. 28, 1994, p. 8803); and to a bill
amending a law reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services opposing concessional loans to a country and outlining principles
governing the conduct of industrial cooperation projects of U.S. nationals
in that country, an amendment proposed in a motion to recommit waiving
provisions of other law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve
overall trade reciprocity between that country and the United States (a
subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means) (Nov.
6, 1997, p. 24824).
The standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be
§ 935. Various tests of
measured, as set forth in §§ 932–934, supra, are not
germaneness are not exclusive; an amendment and the matter to which of-
exclusive. fered may be related to some degree under the tests
of subject matter, purpose, and jurisdiction, and still
not be considered germane under the precedents. Thus, the following have
been held not to be germane: to a proposition relating to terms of Senators,
an amendment changing the manner of their election (V, 5882); to a bill
[724]
relating to commerce between the States, an amendment relating to com-

merce within the several States (V, 5841); to a proposition to relieve des-
titute citizens of the United States in Cuba, a proposition declaring a state
of war in Cuba and proclaiming neutrality (V, 5897); to a proposition for
the appointment of a select committee to investigate a certain subject,
an amendment proposing an inquiry of the executive on that subject (V,
5891); to a bill granting a right of way to a railroad, an amendment pro-
viding for the purchase of the railroad by the Government (V, 5887); to
a provision for the erection of a building for a mint, an amendment to
change the coinage laws (V, 5884); to a resolution proposing expulsion,
an amendment proposing censure (VI, 236); to a resolution authorizing
the administration of the oath to a Member-elect, an amendment author-
izing such oath administration but adding several conditions of punish-
ment predicated on acts committed in a prior Congress (Jan. 3, 1969, pp.
23–25); to a general tariff bill, an amendment creating a tariff board (May
6, 1913, p. 1234; Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913, p. 1381); to a proposition
to sell two battleships and build a new battleship with the proceeds, a
proposition to devote the proceeds to building wagon roads (VIII, 2973);
to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil action in
Federal court against a person who has violated a State law regulating
intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain violations of liquor
laws on the basis of their regard for any and all firearms issues (Aug.
3, 1999, p. 19213).
One individual proposition may not be amended by another individual
§ 936. One individual
proposition even though the two belong to the same
proposition not class (VIII, 2951–2953, 2963–2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986,
germane to another. p. 684; Oct. 22, 1990, p. 32346; Oct. 24, 1991, p. 28561).
Thus, the following are not germane: to a bill proposing
the admission of one territory into the Union, an amendment for admission
of another territory (V, 5529); to a bill amending a law in one particular,
amending the law in another particular (VIII, 2949); to a proposition to
appropriate or to authorize appropriations for only one year (and con-
taining no provisions extending beyond that year), an amendment to extend
the authorization or appropriation to another year (VIII, 2913; Nov. 13,
1980, pp. 29523–28; see also May 2, 1979, p. 9564; Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28097–
99; June 20, 2001, pp. 11233, 11234); to a measure continuing appropria-
tions for the current fiscal year for a specified period, an amendment pro-
posed in a motion to recommit making certain funds available beyond such
time (Dec. 13, 2007, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a measure
earmarking funds in an appropriation bill, an amendment authorizing the
program for which the appropriation is made (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019);
to a bill for the relief of one individual, an amendment proposing similar
relief for another (V, 5826–5829); to a resolution providing a special order
for one bill, an amendment to include another bill (V, 5834–5836); to a
provision for extermination of the cotton-boll weevil, an amendment includ-
ing the gypsy moth (V, 5832); to a provision for a clerk for one committee,
[725]
an amendment for a clerk to another committee (V, 5833); to a Senate

amendment dealing with use of its contingent fund for art restoration in
that body, a proposed House amendment for use of the House contingent
fund for a similar but broader purpose (May 24, 1990, p. 12203); to a bill
prohibiting transportation of messages relative to dealing in cotton futures,
an amendment adding wheat, corn, etc. (VIII, 3001); to a bill prohibiting
cotton futures, an amendment prohibiting wheat futures (VIII, 3001); to
a bill for the relief of certain aliens, an amendment for the relief of other
persons who are not aliens (May 14, 1975, p. 14360); to a bill providing
relief for agricultural producers, an amendment extending such relief to
commercial fishermen (also in the jurisdiction of another committee) (Apr.
24, 1978, p. 11080); to a bill governing the political activities of Federal
civilian employees, an amendment to cover members of the uniformed serv-
ices (June 7, 1977, p. 17713); to a bill covering the civil service system
for Federal civilian employees, an amendment bringing other classes of
employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the scope
of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp. 28437–39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951–54); to
a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a certain purpose
to be expended by one agency, an amendment containing funds for another
agency for the same purpose (July 24, 1981, p. 17226); to an amendment
exempting national defense budget authority from the reach of a proposed
Presidential rescission authority, an amendment exempting social security
(Feb. 2, 1995, p. 5501); to a Senate amendment striking an earmark from
an appropriation bill, a House amendment reinserting part of the amount
but adding other earmarks for unrelated programs (Nov. 15, 1989, p.
29019); to a Senate amendment relating to a feasibility study of a land
transfer in one State, a House amendment requiring an environmental
study of land in another State (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29035); to a bill prohibiting
certain uses of polygraphy in the private sector, an amendment applying
the terms of the bill to the Congress (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 30870); to a bill
to determine the equitability of Federal pay practices under statutory sys-
tems applicable to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to ex-
tend the scope of the determination to pay practices in the legislative
branch (ruling sustained by Committee of Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26422);
to a special appropriation bill providing funds and authority for agricul-
tural credit programs but containing no transfers of funds, reappropri-
ations, or rescissions, an amendment (contained in a motion to recommit)
deriving funds for the bill by transfer of unobligated balances in the Energy
Security Reserve and thus decreasing and transferring funds provided for
a program unrelated to the subject matter or method of funding provided
in the bill (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill prohibiting importation of
goods made in whole or in part by convict, pauper, or detained labor, or
made in whole or in part from materials that have been made in whole
or in part in any manner manipulated by convict or prison labor, an amend-
ment prohibiting importation of goods produced by child labor, a second
discrete class (VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment authorizing grants
[726]
to States for purchase of one class of equipment (photographic and finger-

print equipment) for law enforcement purposes, an amendment including
assistance for the purchase of a different class of equipment (bulletproof
vests) (Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28121–24); to a bill repealing section 14(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act and making conforming changes in two
related sections of labor law, all pertaining solely to the so-called ‘‘right-
to-work’’ issue, an amendment excluding from the applicability of certain
labor-management agreements members of religious groups (July 28, 1965,
p. 18633); to a bill relating to the design of certain coin currency, an amend-
ment specifying the metal content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973,
p. 29376); to a proposition to accomplish a single purpose without amending
a certain law, an amendment to accomplish another purpose by amending
that law (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41723–25); to a bill regulating poll closing
time in Presidential general elections, an amendment extending its provi-
sions to Presidential primary elections (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684); to a bill
authorizing grants to private entities furnishing health care to underserved
populations, an amendment authorizing grants to States to control a public
health hazard (a different category of recipient) (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3604);
to a bill siting a certain type of repository for a specified kind of nuclear
waste, an amendment prohibiting the construction at another site of an-
other type of repository for another kind of nuclear waste (July 21, 1992,
p. 18718); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment addressing
nonviolent crimes, such as crimes of fraud and deception or crimes against
the environment (May 7, 1996, pp. 10342, 10343); to a bill naming a facility
after a specific person, an amendment proposing to substitute the name
of a different person (VIII, 2955) where it could not be shown that the
amendment intended a return to the facility’s existing designation (Feb.
4, 1998, p. 792); to a joint resolution addressing whether public funds
should be available for specified endeavors of one group, an amendment
addressing the same question for unrelated endeavors of another group
(Feb. 4, 1998, p. 819); to a bill proposing to alter responsibilities of executive
branch agencies under an existing law, an amendment proposing to extend
the application of that law to entities of the legislative branch (Mar. 12,
1998, p. 3389); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Con-
stitution authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag,
a motion to recommit with instructions proposing an amendment to the
Constitution requiring a balanced budget (June 22, 2005, pp. 13539, 13540
(sustained by tabling of appeal)) or requiring that Social Security receipts
and outlays be counted as receipts or outlays of the United States (June
22, 2005, pp. 13540, 13541 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to afford equal
rights on the basis of sex, an amendment to add ‘‘race, creed, or color’’
(Oct. 12, 1971, pp. 35813, 35814).
[727]
A specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in nature,

§ 937. A general
even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843–
provision not germane 5846; VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832–34;
to a specific subject. see also Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, § 9). Thus the following
are not germane: to a bill for the admission of one terri-
tory into the Union, an amendment providing for the admission of several
other territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating to all corporations engaged
in interstate commerce, an amendment relating to all corporations (V,
5842); to a bill proscribing certain picketing in the District of Columbia,
an amendment making the provisions thereof applicable throughout the
United States (Aug. 22, 1966, p. 20113); to a joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the United States or any
State from denying persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an
amendment requiring the United States and all States to treat persons
18 years and older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes
under the law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); to a bill dealing with enforcement
of United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, p.
7446); to a bill to enable a department to investigate and prosecute fraud
and abuse in medicare and medicaid health programs, an amendment to
prohibit any officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable medical
record absent patient approval (Sept. 23, 1977, pp. 30534–35); to an amend-
ment to a budget resolution changing one functional category only, an
amendment changing several other categories and covering an additional
fiscal year (May 2, 1979, pp. 9556–64); to a bill authorizing funds for radio
broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment to include broadcasting to all dicta-
torships in the Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20256); to a bill relating
to aircraft altitude over units of the National Park System, an amendment
relating to aircraft collision avoidance generally (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 24084);
to a proposition prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for a fiscal year
for a specified purpose, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds appro-
priated for that or any prior fiscal year for an unrelated purpose is not
germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18294); to a proposition providing for a training
vessel for one state maritime academy, an amendment relating to training
vessels for all state maritime academies is not germane (June 30, 1987,
p. 18296); to a proposition waiving a requirement in existing law that an
authorizing law be enacted before the obligation of certain funds, an
amendment affirmatively enacting bills containing not only that authoriza-
tion but also other policy matters (Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26108); to a proposition
pertaining only to a certain appropriation account in a bill, an amendment
relating not only to that account but also to funds in other acts (Sept.
30, 1988, p. 27148); to a proposition raising an employment ceiling for
one year, an amendment addressing in permanent law a hiring preference
system for such employees (Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24089); to an omnibus farm
bill with myriad programs to improve agricultural economy, an amendment
[728]
to the Animal Welfare Act not limited to agricultural pursuits (Aug. 1,

1990, p. 21573); to a bill authorizing Federal funding for qualifying State
national service programs, an amendment conditioning a portion of such
funding on the enactment of State laws immunizing volunteers in nonprofit
or public programs, generally, from certain legal liabilities (July 28, 1993,
p. 17401); to an amendment addressing particular educational require-
ments imposed on educational agencies by the underlying bill, an amend-
ment addressing any requirements imposed on educational agencies by
the underlying bill (Mar. 21, 1994, p. 5771); to a bill reauthorizing programs
administered by the Economic Development Administration and the Appa-
lachian Regional Commission, an amendment providing for the waiver of
any Federal regulation that would interfere with economic development
(May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to a bill prohibiting a certain class of abortion
procedures, an amendment prohibiting any or all abortion procedures (Mar.
20, 1997, p. 4425); to a bill addressing one class of imported goods (those
produced by forced labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods
from a specified country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24643); to a bill confined to a
single national historic trail designation, a motion to recommit with in-
structions extending to all trails addressed by the National Trails System
Act (July 10, 2008, p. l).
To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and agencies
of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and agencies
is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, the following are not ger-
mane: to a bill establishing an office without regulatory authority in the
Department of the Interior to manage biological information, an amend-
ment addressing requirements of compensation for constitutional takings
by other regulatory agencies (Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26076); to a bill amending
an authority of an agency under an existing law, an amendment independ-
ently expressing the sense of Congress on regulatory agencies generally
(May 14, 1992, p. 11287); to a proposition authorizing activities of certain
government agencies for a temporary period, an amendment permanently
changing existing law to cover a broader range of government activities
(May 5, 1988, p. 9938); and to a joint resolution continuing funding within
one executive department, an amendment addressing funding for other
departments as well as one addressing the compensation of Federal em-
ployees on a government-wide basis (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).
To a bill modifying an existing law as to one specific particular, an
amendment relating to the terms of the law other than those dealt with
by the bill is not germane (V, 5806–5808). Thus, the following are not
germane: to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act in one particular,
an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a proposition temporarily
suspending certain requirements of the Clean Air Act, an amendment tem-
porarily suspending other requirements of all other environmental protec-
tion laws (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41751); to an amendment striking from a bill
one activity from those covered by the law being amended, a substitute
striking the entire subsection of the bill, thereby eliminating the applica-
[729]
bility of existing law to a number of activities (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963);

to a bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment
restricting authorizations under that or any other act (Dec. 10, 1987, p.
34676); to a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment mak-
ing permanent changes in that law (Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32893); and to a
bill amending an existing law in one particular, an amendment amending
other laws and more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. 30513,
30515, 30517).
A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered general in
its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment by propo-
sitions of the same class (VIII, 3003). Although a specific proposition cov-
ering a defined class may not be amended by a proposition more general
in scope, the Chair may consider all pending provisions being read for
amendment in determining the generality of the class covered by that prop-
osition (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1051).
A general subject may be amended by specific propositions of the same
§ 938. Specific subjects
class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Deschler-Brown,
germane to general ch. 28, § 11). Thus, the following have been held to be
propositions of the germane: to a bill admitting several territories into the
class. Union, an amendment adding another territory (V,
5838); to a bill providing for the construction of build-
ings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar buildings
in several other cities (V, 5840); to a resolution embodying two distinct
phases of international relationship, an amendment embodying a third
(V, 5839); to an amendment prohibiting indirect assistance to several coun-
tries, an amendment to include additional countries within that prohibition
(Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); to a portion of a bill providing two categories
of economic assistance to foreign countries, an amendment adding a further
specific category (Apr. 9, 1979, pp. 7755–57); to a bill bringing two new
categories within the coverage of existing law, an amendment to include
a third category of the same class (Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769); to a proposition
providing for prepayment of loans by those within a certain class of bor-
rowers who meet a specified criterion, a proposed House amendment elimi-
nating the criterion to broaden the applicability of the Senate amendment
to additional borrowers within the same class (June 30, 1987, p. 18308);
to an amendment addressing a range of criminal prohibitions, an amend-
ment addressing another criminal prohibition within that range (Oct. 17,
1991, p. 26767); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment address-
ing violent crimes involving the environment (May 7, 1996, p. 10344).
Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose (support of arts and
humanities) by diverse methods, an amendment that adds a specific meth-
od to accomplish that result (artist employment through the National En-
dowment for the Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26, 1976, p. 11101; see also
June 12, 1979, p. 14460). However, to a resolution authorizing a class of
employees in the service of the House, an amendment providing for the
employment of a specified individual was held not to be germane (V, 5848–
[730]
5849). Other examples of amendments that have been held to be germane

under this theory include: to a proposition relating in many diverse respects
to the political rights of the people of the District of Columbia, an amend-
ment conferring upon that electorate the additional right of electing a non-
voting Delegate to the Senate (Oct. 10, 1973, p. 33656); to a bill containing
definitions of several of the terms used therein, an amendment modifying
one of the definitions and adding another (Sept. 26, 1967, p. 26878); to
a bill authorizing a broad program of research and development, an amend-
ment directing specific emphasis in the administration of the program (Dec.
19, 1973, p. 42607); to a bill providing for investigation of relationships
between environmental pollution and cancer, an amendment to investigate
the impact of personal health habits, such as cigarette smoking, on that
relationship (Sept. 15, 1976, pp. 30496–98); to a supplemental appropria-
tion bill containing funds for several departments and agencies, an amend-
ment in the form of a new chapter providing funds for capital outlays for
subway construction in the District of Columbia (May 11, 1971, p. 14437);
to a proposal authorizing military procurement, including purchase of food
supplies, an amendment authorizing establishment that fiscal year of a
military preparedness grain reserve (July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074,
17092, 17093).
To a bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment
§ 939. Amendments to
relating to the terms of the law rather than to those
bills amending of the bill was ruled not to be germane (V, 5808; VIII,
existing law. 2707, 2708). Thus a bill amending several sections of
one title of the United States Code does not necessarily
bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment
to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and if a bill amends existing
law in one narrow particular, an amendment proposing to modify such
existing law in other particulars will generally be ruled out as not germane
(Aug. 16, 1967, p. 22768; VIII, 2709, 2839, 3013, 3031; May 12, 1976, p.
13532). To a bill narrowly amending an anti-discrimination provision in
the Education Amendments of 1972 only to clarify the definition of a dis-
criminating entity subject to denial of Federal funding, amendments re-
defining a class of discrimination (sex), expanding the definition of persons
who are the subject of discrimination (to include the unborn), and deeming
a new entity (Congress) to be a recipient of Federal assistance (a class
not necessarily included in the class covered by the bill), were ruled not
to be germane (June 26, 1984, pp. 18847, 18857, 18861). But to the same
bill, an amendment merely defining a word used in the bill was held ger-
mane (June 26, 1984, p. 18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends exist-
ing law as to open up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of
an amendment to the bill depends on its relationship to the subject of
the bill and not to the entire law being amended (Oct. 28, 1975, p. 34031).
But a bill amending several sections of an existing law may be sufficiently
broad to permit amendments to other sections of that law not mentioned
in the bill (Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596; Sept. 14, 1978, p. 29487). To a bill
[731]
continuing and re-enacting an existing law, amendments germane to the

existing act sought to be continued have been held germane to the pending
bill (VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; Oct. 31, 1963, p. 20728; June 1, 1976,
p. 16045); but if a bill merely extends an official’s authority under existing
law, an amendment permanently amending that law has been held not
in order (Sept. 29, 1969, pp. 27341–43). Thus where a bill authorized appro-
priations to an agency for one year but did not amend the organic law
by extending the existence of that agency, an amendment extending the
life of another entity mentioned in the organic law was held not germane
(May 20, 1976, p. 14912). An amendment making permanent changes in
the law relating to organization of an agency is not germane to a title
of a bill only authorizing appropriations for such agency for one fiscal year
(Nov. 29, 1979, p. 34090). To a general appropriation bill providing funds
for one fiscal year, an amendment changing a permanent appropriation
in existing law and changing congressional procedures for consideration
of that general appropriation bill in future years is more general in scope
(and in part within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) and there-
fore is not germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a temporary authoriza-
tion bill prescribing the use of an agency’s funds for two years but not
amending permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the or-
ganic law governing that agency’s operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982,
p. 28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465; Feb. 13, 2008, p. l (sus-
tained by tabling of appeal)). However, to a bill authorizing appropriations
for a department for one fiscal year, where the effect of the department’s
activities pursuant to that authorization may extend beyond such year,
an amendment directing a specific use of those funds to perform an activity
that may not be completed within the fiscal year was nevertheless ger-
mane, because limited to funds in the bill (Oct. 18, 1979, p. 28763). Simi-
larly, to a one-year authorization bill containing diverse limitations and
directions to the agency in question during such year, an amendment fur-
ther directing the agency to obtain information from the private sector,
and to make such information public during such year, was held germane
(Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28815–17). Although an amendment making a perma-
nent change in existing law has been held not germane to a bill proposing
a temporary change in that law, if it is apparent that the fundamental
purpose of the amendment is to have only temporary effect and to accom-
plish the same result as the bill, it may be germane. Thus to a bill providing
a temporary extension of existing authority, an amendment achieving the
same purpose by providing a nominally permanent authority was held ger-
mane where both the bill and the amendment were based on reported
economic projections under which either would achieve the same, nec-
essarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect amendment to
the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344). However, to a proposal
continuing the availability of appropriated funds and imposing diverse leg-
islative conditions upon the availability of appropriations, an amendment
directly and permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of re-
[732]
cipients of funds was held to be nongermane (Dec. 10, 1981, pp. 30536–
38). To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment
proposing further modification of that law may be germane (Apr. 23, 1969,
p. 10067; Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596). But to a bill amending a law in one
particular, an amendment repealing the law is not germane (Jan. 14, 1964,
p. 423). To a bill amending a general law in several particulars, an amend-
ment providing for the repeal of the whole law may be germane (V, 5824),
but the bill amending the law must so vitally affect the whole law as to
bring the entire act under consideration before the Chair will hold an
amendment repealing the law or amending any section of the law germane
to the bill (VIII, 2944; Apr. 2, 1924, p. 5437). If a bill repeals a provision
of law, an amendment modifying that provision rather than repealing it
may be germane (Oct. 30, 1969, p. 32466); but the modification must relate
to the provision of law being repealed (July 28, 1965, p. 18636). Generally
to a bill amending one law, an amendment changing the provisions of an-
other law or prohibiting assistance under any other law is not germane
(May 11, 1976, p. 13419; Aug. 12, 1992, p. 23238). To a bill amending
the Bretton Woods Act in relation to the International Monetary Fund,
an amendment prohibiting the alienation of gold to the IMF or to any
other international organization or its agents was held not germane (July
27, 1976, p. 24040). However, to a bill comprehensively amending several
laws within the same class, an amendment further amending one of those
laws on a subject within that class is germane (May 12, 1976, p. 13530);
and to a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one
fiscal year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating thereto,
an amendment changing another permanent law to address accountability
for intelligence activities was held germane (Oct. 17, 1990, p. 30171). To
a title of a bill dealing with a number of unrelated authorities of the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, an amendment amending another act within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to require the adoption of
a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream was held germane, be-
cause it was restricted to the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture
(July 22, 1977, pp. 24558–70). But to a section of a bill amending a section
of the National Labor Relations Act dealing with procedural rules gov-
erning labor elections and organizations, an amendment changing the
same section of law to require promulgation of rules defining certain con-
duct as an unfair labor practice was held not germane, where neither the
pending section nor the bill itself addressed the subject of unfair labor
practices dealt with in another section of the law (Oct. 5, 1977, p. 32507).
To a bill narrowly amending one subsection of existing law dealing with
one specific criminal activity, an amendment postponing the effective date
of the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions and classes of per-
sons as well as the one amended by the bill, or an amendment to another
subsection of the law dealing with a related but separate prohibition, was
held not germane (May 16, 1979, pp. 11470–72), but to an amendment
adding sundry punitive sections to the Federal criminal code, an amend-
[733]
ment creating an exception to the prohibition of another such section was

held germane (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26767).
Restrictions, qualifications, and limitations sought to be added by way
§ 940. Amendments
of amendment must be germane to the provisions of
imposing conditions, the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be
qualifications, and germane if the condition is related to the general pur-
limitations. pose and within the scope of the pending proposition
(Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, §§ 29–34). Thus, the following
are germane: to a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of programs
that satisfy several stated requirements in order to accomplish a general
purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability of those funds upon
implementation by their recipients of another program related to that gen-
eral purpose (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a bill authorizing funds for mili-
tary procurement and construction, an amendment declaring that none
of the funds be used to carry out military operations in North Vietnam
(Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); to a proposition reducing the line-item authoriza-
tion for certain missiles and prohibiting procurement of certain other mis-
siles, an amendment proposing a conditional restriction on the availability
of funds for such procurement that merely requires observation of activities
of another country, which activities already constitute the policy basis for
the funding of that governmental activity (missile procurement) (May 16,
1984, p. 12510); to a bill authorizing federal funding of certain qualifying
state programs, an amendment restricting the payment of Federal funds
in a bill to States that enact certain laws relating to the activities being
funded (July 28, 1993, p. 17403); to an authorization bill, an amendment
that conditions the availability of such funds by adopting as a measure
of their availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a comparable
percentage of funds authorized by other acts as long as the amendment
does not directly affect the use of other funds (July 26, 1973, p. 26210);
to a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an amendment restricting
the amounts of direct spending in the bill to the levels set in the concurrent
resolution on the budget as merely a measure of availability of funds in
the bill and not a provision directly affecting the congressional budget proc-
ess (June 11, 1987, p. 15540); to a proposition restricting the availability
of funds to a certain category of recipients, an amendment further restrict-
ing the availability of funds to a subcategory of the same recipients (Sept.
25, 1979, pp. 26135–43); to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency,
an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for any purpose to which the
funds may otherwise be applied (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716); an amendment
that conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill by adopting as
a measure of their availability the monthly increases in the public debt
(as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of law
or impose contingencies textually predicated upon other unrelated actions
of Congress) (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150–52); to a bill authorizing defense
assistance to a foreign nation, an amendment delaying the availability
of that assistance until that nation’s former ambassador testified before
[734]
a House committee, which had been directed by the House to investigate

gifts by that nation’s representatives to influence Members and employees,
as a contingency that sought to compel the furnishing of information re-
lated to efforts to induce defense assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978,
p. 23932); to a provision authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment
restricting the availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a
specified purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that
purpose (July 21, 1983, p. 20198); to a bill authorizing humanitarian and
evacuation assistance to war refugees, an amendment making such author-
ization contingent on a report to Congress on costs of a portion of the
evacuation program (but not requiring implementation of any new pro-
gram) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); and to an amendment precluding the avail-
ability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then permitting
availability for the remainder of the year based upon a contingency, an
amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability of the same funds
for the entire fiscal year (May 16, 1984, p. 12567).
On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of funds
are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the con-
duct of congressional hearings addressing an unrelated subject (July 22,
1994, p. 17613); to a proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon
the enactment of an authorizing statute for the enforcing agency, a sub-
stitute conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a prohibi-
tion of certain imports into the United States (Nov. 7, 1985, p. 30984);
to a bill authorizing funds for military assistance to certain foreign coun-
tries, an amendment to make the availability of those funds contingent
upon efforts by those countries to control narcotic traffic to the United
States, and to authorize the President to offer the assistance of Federal
agencies for that purpose, where the subjects of narcotics and the accessi-
bility of Federal agencies are not contained in the bill (June 17, 1971,
p. 20589); to a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an amendment
placing restrictions on funds authorized or appropriated in prior years
(Aug. 24, 1967, p. 24002); to an amendment changing a dollar amount
in a bill, a substitute therefor not only changing the figure but also restrict-
ing the use of any funds in furtherance of a certain activity (June 7, 1972,
p. 19920); to a proposal to restrict availability of agency funds for a year
and amending the organic law as it relates to the internal functions thereof,
an amendment further restricting funding but also applying with respect
to the use of funds in the bill provisions of criminal and other laws not
applicable thereto (Oct. 26, 1989, p. 26269); to a provision prohibiting aid
to a certain country unless certain conditions were met, an amendment
prohibiting aid to another country until that nation took certain acts, and
referring to funds provided in other acts (Nov. 17, 1967, p. 32968); and
an amendment conditioning the availability of defense funds to foreign
contractors based upon their compliance with Federal law regarding dis-
crimination not otherwise applicable to them (and within the jurisdiction
of other committees) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060); an amendment conditioning
[735]
the availability of grants to states and localities based upon their compli-
ance with Federal immigration law regarding employment eligibility
verification not otherwise applicable to them (and within the jurisdiction
of other committees) (Mar. 7, 2007, p. l).
An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation
on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions of departments
and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).
An amendment delaying the availability of authorizations pending unre-
lated determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions not
within the purview of the bill is also not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, p. 3708;
July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218). Thus, the following are
not germane: to a bill authorizing military assistance to Israel and funds
for a U.N. emergency force in the Middle East, an amendment postponing
the availability of funds to Israel until the President certifies the existence
of a designated level of domestic energy supplies (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40837);
an amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation pending the
enactment of certain revenue legislation (Oct. 25, 1979, p. 29639); to a
bill authorizing radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment prohibiting
the use of those funds until Congress has considered a constitutional
amendment mandating a balanced budget (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20250).
Similarly, although it may be in order on a general appropriation bill
to delay the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does
not impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be re-
lated to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in the
bill not related to that factual situation (VII, 1596, 1600), may not be made
applicable to a trust fund provided (IV, 4017), and may not be made applica-
ble to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927; VII, 1495, 1597–1599).
Thus, to a general appropriation bill containing funds not only for a former
President but also for other departments and agencies, an amendment
delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until the former President
has made restitution of a designated amount of money is not germane
(Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33620). On the other hand, to a general appropriation
bill providing funds for the Department of Agriculture and including spe-
cific allocation of funds for pest control, an amendment was germane that
prohibited the use of funds for use of pesticides prohibited by State or
local law (May 26, 1969, p. 13753).
It is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness of the legisla-
tion pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037). Thus the fol-
lowing are not germane: an amendment delaying the bill’s effectiveness
pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and committee juris-
dictions not within the purview of the bill (Feb. 7, 1973, p. 3708; July
8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218); an amendment delaying the
bill’s effectiveness pending enactment of unrelated State legislation (June
29, 1967, p. 17921; July 28, 1993, p. 17401); an amendment conditioning
authorization for one agency (National Science Foundation) on appropria-
tions for another (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (May
[736]
2, 2007, pp. 11093 0995); to a bill proposing relief for women and children
in Germany, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of such relief until
a soldier’s compensation act shall have been enacted (VIII, 3035); and to
a bill naming an airport, an amendment conditioning the naming on ap-
proval by an entity without jurisdiction over the administration of the air-
port (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 794). On the other hand, the following are germane:
an amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an
ascertainment of a fact when the fact to be ascertained relates to the subject
matter of the bill (VIII, 3029; Dec. 15, 1982, pp. 30957–61); an amendment
postponing the effective date of a title of a bill to a date certain (July
25, 1973, p. 25828); to a provision to become effective immediately, an
amendment deferring the time at which it shall become effective, without
involving affirmative legislation (VIII, 3030).
Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive
official, an amendment is germane that directs that official to take certain
actions in the exercise of the authority or proposes to limit such authority
(VIII, 3022). Thus the following are germane: to an amendment in the
nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy Administrator to
restrict exports of certain energy resources, an amendment directing that
official to prohibit the exportation of petroleum products for use in Indo-
china military operations (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41753); to a provision conferring
Presidential authority to establish priorities among users of petroleum
products and requiring priority to education and transportation users, an
amendment restricting such regulatory authority by requiring that petro-
leum products allocated for public school transportation be used only be-
tween the student’s home and the closest school (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267–
69); to a bill extending the authorities of one government agency, including
requirements for consultation with several other agencies, an amendment
requiring that agency to perform a function based upon an analysis fur-
nished by yet another agency, as an additional limitation on the authority
of the agency being extended that did not separately mandate the perform-
ance of an unrelated function by another entity (July 27, 1978, p. 23107);
to a proposition authorizing a program to be undertaken, a substitute pro-
viding for a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking the same
type of program, as a more limited approach involving the same agency
(June 26, 1985, pp. 17453, 17458, 17460) (in effect overruling VIII, 2989);
and to a bill limiting an official’s authority to construe legal authorities
transferred to the official in the bill, an amendment further restricting
such official’s authority to construe under any circumstances certain other
laws to be administered by that official (as an additional, although more
restrictive, curtailment of existing authorities transferred by the bill) (June
11, 1979, pp. 14226–38).
An amendment providing a privileged procedure for expedited review
of an agency’s regulations is not germane if the bill does not contain such
procedures (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975–78). On the other hand, to
a bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain activities, an amendment
[737]
allowing Congress to disapprove regulations issued pursuant thereto if the

disapproval mechanism does not amend the rules or procedures of the
House is germane (May 4, 1976, p. 12348); and to a bill directing the fur-
nishing of certain intelligence information to the House without amending
any House procedure, an amendment imposing relevant conditions of secu-
rity on the handling of such information in committee (also without amend-
ing any House procedure) for the period covered by the bill is also germane
(June 11, 1991, p. 14204).
It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular class
of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the following are
germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment to limit such
aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to a bill authorizing
the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such insurance to vessels
charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); to a proposition denying benefits
to recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute denying
the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others (July 28, 1982,
pp. 18355–58, 18361). Although a bill relating to benefits based on indem-
nification of liability arising out of an activity does not ordinarily admit
as germane amendments relating to regulation of that activity, an amend-
ment conditioning benefits upon agreement by its recipient to be governed
by certain safety regulations may be germane if related to the activity
giving rise to the liability (July 29, 1987, p. 21448). On the other hand,
it is not germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular class
of recipient upon an unrelated contingency such as action or inaction by
another class of recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 1986,
p. 3613).
To a bill not only granting consent of Congress to an interstate compact
but also imposing conditions on the granting of that consent, an amend-
ment stating an additional related condition to that consent and not di-
rectly changing the compact may be germane (Oct. 7, 1997, p. 21475). To
a bill regulating immigration, an amendment providing that the operation
of the act should not conflict with an agreement with Japan is not germane
(VIII, 3050).
Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within
the scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain percent-
age of autos sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, and
imposing an import restriction on autos for persons violating that require-
ment, an amendment waiving those restrictions with respect to a foreign
nation where the President has issued a proclamation that that nation
is not imposing unfair import restrictions on any United States product
was held not germane, because it dealt with overall trade issues rather
than domestic content requirement for autos sold in the United States
(Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30776). However, an amendment to the same bill prohib-
iting its implementation if resulting in the violation of an international
agreement was held germane because the bill already comprehensively
addressed those subject matters by disclaiming any purpose to amend
[738]
international agreements or to confer court jurisdiction relative thereto

and by conferring court jurisdiction over adjudication of penalties assessed
under the bill (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30546). Similarly, the following are ger-
mane: to a bill providing for the deportation of aliens, an amendment to
exempt a portion of such aliens from deportation (VIII, 3029); to a bill
prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes, an
amendment to except labor disputes affecting public utilities (VIII, 3024).
Readings
8. Bills and joint resolutions are subject to
§ 941. Reading, readings as follows:
engrossment, and
passage of bills.
(a) A first reading is in full when the bill or

joint resolution is first considered.
(b) A second reading occurs only when the
bill or joint resolution is read for amendment
in a Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union under clause 5 of rule
XVIII.
(c) A third reading precedes passage when
the Speaker states the question: ‘‘Shall the bill
[or joint resolution] be engrossed [when appli-
cable] and read a third time?’’ If that question
is decided in the affirmative, then the bill or
joint resolution shall be read the final time by
title and then the question shall be put on its
passage.
This provision (formerly clause 1 of rule XXI) was adopted in 1789,
amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and on Jan. 4, 1965 (H. Res. 8, 89th
Cong., p. 21). This latest amendment eliminated the provision that per-
mitted a Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of
a House bill. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXI. The recodification
also clarified paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect the modern practice of first
and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[739]
Formerly a bill was read for the first time by title at the time of its
§ 942. First and second
introduction, but since 1890 all bills have been intro-
readings. duced by filing them with the Clerk, thus rendering
a reading by title impossible at that time (IV, 3391).
But the titles of all bills introduced are printed in the Journal and Record,
thereby carrying out the real purpose of the rule.
Under paragraph (a), the first reading of a bill is in full and occurs
when a bill is called up in the House (IV, 3391), although when called
up pursuant to a unanimous-consent request, it is reported by title only
(Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30269). The initial step of consideration in the Committee
of the Whole is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘first reading.’’ Under clause
5 of rule XVIII that reading is in full and occurs before general debate
commences. However, it customarily is dispensed with by unanimous con-
sent or special rule, although a motion to dispense with the first reading
is not in order (VIII, 2335, 2436). The Speaker may object to a request
for unanimous consent to dispense with the first reading (IV, 3390; VII,
1054).
Under paragraph (b), the second reading of a bill comprises its reading
for amendment in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 28, 1977, p. 12635).
The right to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a bill
§ 943. The third
formerly guaranteed by the rule existed immediately
reading after after it had been ordered to be engrossed and before
engrossment. it had been read a third time by title (IV, 3400, 3403,
3404; VII, 1061); and before the yeas and nays had been
ordered on passage (IV, 3402). The right to demand the reading in full
caused the bill to be laid aside until engrossed even though the previous
question had been ordered (IV, 3395–3399; VII, 1062). A privileged motion
may not intervene before the third reading (IV, 3405), and the question
on engrossment and third reading is not subject to a demand for division
of the question (Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544). A vote on passage must first be
reconsidered to remedy the omission to read a bill a third time (IV, 3406).
Senate bills are not engrossed in the House; but are ordered to a third
reading. The demand for the reading of the engrossed copy of a Senate
bill cannot be made in the House (VIII, 2426).
A bill in the House (as distinguished from the Committee of the Whole)
§ 944. Voting on bills.
is amended pending the engrossment and third reading
(V, 5781; VI, 1051, 1052). The question on engrossment
and third reading being decided in the negative the bill is rejected (IV,
3420, 3421). A bill must be considered and voted on by itself (IV, 3408).
If the two Houses pass similar but distinct bills on the same subject it
is necessary that one or the other House act again on the subject (IV,
3386). The requirement of a two-thirds vote for proposed constitutional
amendments has been construed in the later practice to apply only to the
vote on the final passage (V, 7029, 7030; VIII, 3504). A bill having been
rejected by the House, consideration of a similar but not identical bill on
the same subject was afterwards held to be in order (IV, 3384).
[740]
Rule XVII, clause 1 § 945
RULE XVII
DECORUM AND DEBATE
Decorum
1. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
§ 945. Obtaining the missioner who desires to speak or
floor for debate; and
relevancy and deliver a matter to the House shall
decorum therein.
rise and respectfully address the
Speaker and, on being recognized, may address
the House from any place on the floor. When in-
vited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner may speak from the Clerk’s
desk.
(b) Remarks in debate (which may include ref-
erences to the Senate or its Members) shall be
confined to the question under debate, avoiding
personality.
This clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but
was made up, in its main provisions, of older rules, which dated from 1789
and 1811 (V, 4979). A rule of comity prohibiting most references in debate
to the Senate was first enunciated in Jefferson’s Manual and was strictly
enforced in the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with certain
exceptions adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses outlined in former
paragraph (b)) (§ 371, supra; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6; H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1989, p. 72). In the 109th Congress the exceptions were deleted and
the parenthetical in paragraph (b) was inserted (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan.
1 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause, and rulings
of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate, are dis-
cussed in §§ 361, 371, supra.
The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
enforce decorum in debate, and the chair of the Committee of the Whole,
who enforces decorum in debate under rule XVIII, have reminded and ad-
vised Members of the following: (1) clause 1 requires Members seeking
recognition to rise and to address themselves to the question under debate,
avoiding personality; (2) Members should address their remarks to the
Chair only and not to other entities such as the press or the television
[741]
§ 945 Rule XVII, clause 1
audience, and the Chair takes the initiative to enforce this rule (see, e.g.,
Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26501; Dec. 17, 1987, p. 36139;
Oct. 17, 2005, p. 22907); (3) Members should not refer to or address any
occupant of the galleries; (4) Members should refer to other Members in
debate only in the third person, by State designation (Speaker O’Neill,
June 14, 1978, p. 17615; Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28520; Mar. 7, 1985, p. 5028);
(5) Members should refrain from using profanity or vulgarity in debate
(Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. 2973; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33744;
July 23, 1998, p. 17032; Oct. 11, 2000, p. 22189; Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 23949,
23950; Mar. 10, 2004, p. 3849); (6) the Chair may interrupt a Member
engaging in personalities with respect to another Member of the House,
as the Chair does with respect to such references to the Senate or the
President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551); (7) Members should refrain from discussing
the President’s personal character (May 10, 1994, p. 9697); (8) Members
should heed the gavel (see, e.g., Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; Oct. 2, 2003, p.
23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108) because ignoring the gavel is not
an act of civil disobedience but rather an act of stark incivility (July 28,
2009, p. l), and remarks uttered in debate while not under recognition
do not appear in the Congressional Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965;
Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107, 10108); (9) Members may
not use audio devices during debate (May 24, 2005, p. 11008). The Speaker
has deplored the tendency to address remarks directly to the President
(or others not in the Chamber) in the second person, and cautions Members
on the Chair’s own initiative (see, e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct. 17,
1989, p. 24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999). Even when
referring in debate to the Speaker, Members direct their remarks to the
occupant of the Chair (Nov. 1, 1983, p. 30267).
Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker
or arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the prece-
dents the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary require-
ments for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan.
18, 1995, p. 1441; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in personalities with
respect to the Speaker’s conduct is not in order even though possibly rel-
evant to a pending resolution granting him certain authority (Sept. 24,
1996, p. 24485).
This clause also has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges
by Members to communicate a message, because Members must rise and
address the Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O’Neill,
Apr. 15, 1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9662;
Oct. 19, 1995, pp. 28522, 28540, 28646; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 7,
1996, p. 4083; Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25117; July 24, 1998, p. 17157; Sept.
28, 2000, p. 19940; Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18967). A Member’s comportment
may constitute a breach of decorum even though the content of that Mem-
ber’s speech is not, itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under
this standard the Chair may deny recognition to a Member who has en-
gaged in unparliamentary debate and ignored repeated admonitions by
[742]
the Chair to proceed in order, subject to the will of the House on the ques-
tion of proceeding in order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).
For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to ref-
erences to the official conduct of a Member, see §§ 361–363, supra; with
respect to references to the President, see § 370, supra; and with respect
to references to the Senate, see §§ 371–374, supra.
Aside from ‘‘special-order,’’ ‘‘morning-hour,’’ or ‘‘one-minute’’ debate,
where no question is pending and recognition is by unanimous consent
or leadership listings, it is a general rule that a motion must be made
before a Member may proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this motion
must be reduced to writing upon demand (V, 4986). A motion must also
be stated by the Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may begin
(V, 4982, 4983, 5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes further debate
on it (V, 4989). But sometimes when a communication or a report has
been before the House it has been debated before any specific motion has
been made in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases, such as con-
ference reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole, the motion
to agree is considered as pending without being offered from the floor (IV,
4896; V, 6517).
In presenting a question of personal privilege a Member is not required
to offer a resolution, as is the case involving the privileges of the House
(III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565, 566, 580; see § 708, supra ). Personal explanations
merely are made by unanimous consent (V, 5065).
A Member having the floor may not be deprived of it by an ordinary
§ 946. Interruption of a
motion, even the highly privileged motion to adjourn
Member in debate. (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646), or the motion to table (Mar.
18, 1992, p. 6022), a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 2455–
2458), a question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a motion that the Com-
mittee rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the previous question (VIII, 2609;
Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), but may be interrupted for a conference report
(V, 6451; VIII, 3294) or by a point of order (e.g., June 24, 2008, p. l).
It is a custom also for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the
reception of a message. A Member may yield the floor for a motion to
adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise without losing the right
to continue when the subject is again continued (V, 5009–5013), but if
the House has by resolution vested control of general debate in the Com-
mittee of the Whole in designated Members, their control of general debate
may not be abrogated by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield
for that purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A
Member may also be seated while a paper is being read on the Member’s
time without losing the right to the floor (V, 5015). A Member who, having
the floor, moved the previous question was permitted to resume the floor
on withdrawing the motion (V, 5474). But a Member may not yield to
another Member to offer an amendment without losing the floor (V, 5021,
5030, 5031; VIII, 2476), and a Member may not offer an amendment in
time secured for debate only (VIII, 2474), or request unanimous consent
[743]
§ 947–§ 948 Rule XVII, clause 1
to offer an amendment unless yielded to for that purpose by the Member

controlling the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p. 25589; May 11, 2006, p. 7877).
A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, because
it is within the power of the Chair to recognize Members to offer amend-
ments (Apr. 19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member desiring
to interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for permission
of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VI, 193), but the latter may exercise
discretion as to whether or not to yield (V, 5007, 5008; VI, 193; VIII, 2463,
2465). It is not in order to disrupt a Member’s remarks in debate by repeat-
edly interrupting to ask whether the Member will yield after having de-
clined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26533; Mar. 19,
2009, p. l). If a Member interrupts another during debate without being
yielded to or otherwise recognized (as on a point of order), such remarks
are not printed in the Record (Speaker O’Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; July
21, 1993, p. 16545; July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Members should not engage
in disruption while another is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878; June
27, 1996, p. 15915).
The Speaker may of right speak from the Chair on questions of order
§ 947. Speaker in
and be first heard (II, 1367), but with this exception
debate. may speak from the Chair only by leave of the House
and on questions of fact (II, 1367–1372). On occasions
comparatively rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and partici-
pated in debate on questions of order or matters relating to their own
conduct or rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1367,
1368, 1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers have fre-
quently entered into debate from the floor on substantive legislative issues
before the House for decision, and the right to participate in debate in
the Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30, 1987,
p. 10811).
It has always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House
§ 948. Remarks must
remarks must be confined to the subject under debate
be confined to the (V, 5043–5048; VI, 576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair
subject. normally does not take initiative but waits for the ques-
tion of relevancy of debate to be raised (Sept. 27, 1990,
p. 26226; Mar. 23, 1995, p. 8986; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354–57, 32374;
Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4149; Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3663),
which is untimely after intervening debate (July 31, 2007, p. 21963).
During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine re-
marks to the pending legislation; that is, remarks must not dwell on an-
other measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524; July 31, p.
21970), but rather must maintain a constant nexus between debate and
the subject of the bill (Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354–57; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4450;
Mar. 20, 2002, pp. 3663–64; June 3, 2003, p. 13483, p. 13486). Although
remarks comparing a pending question to a broader policy concern may
be relevant, discussion of the broader policy concern may not stray from
[744]
its nexus to the pending question (July 31, 2007, p. 21965, p. 21966, p.
21967). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to the amendment
(or the second-degree amendment, as the case may be (July 31, 2007, p.
21966)), and may neither include the general merits of the bill (V, 5049–
5051), nor range to the merits of a proposition not included in the under-
lying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p. 3032). Similarly, debate on a motion
to recommit with instructions should be confined to the subject of the mo-
tion rather than dwelling on the general merits of the bill (Mar. 7, 1996,
p. 4092). However, the Chair has accorded Members latitude in debating
a series of amendments in the nature of a substitute to a concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget (Mar. 25, 1999, p. 5734). On a motion to suspend the
rules, debate is confined to the object of the motion and may not range
to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such consideration (Nov. 23, 1991,
p. 34189; June 11, 2002, p. 9997). Debate on a special order providing
for the consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be
made in order (Sept. 26, 1989, p. 21532; Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29668; Oct. 1,
1991, p. 24836), because the question of consideration of the bill is involved,
but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under
that special order (Sept. 27, 1990, p. 26226; July 25, 1995, p. 20323; Sept.
20, 1995, p. 15838; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; May 1, 1996, p. 9888; May
8, 1996, p. 10511; May 15, 1996, p. 1131; Mar. 13, 1997, p. 3833; Mar.
20, 2002, p. 3664) or to the Rules of the House in general (July 9, 2004,
pp. 14971, 14972, 14976 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). Debate on a
resolution providing authorities to expedite the consideration of end-of-
session legislation may neither range to the merits of a measure that might
or might not be considered under such authorities nor engage in personal-
ities with respect to the official conduct of the Speaker, even as asserted
to relate to the question of granting the authorities proposed (Sept. 24,
1996, pp. 24485, 24486). If a unanimous-consent request for a Member
to address the House for one hour specifies the subject of the address,
the occupant of the Chair during that speech may enforce the rule of rel-
evancy in debate by requiring that the remarks be confined to the subject
so specified (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a question of personal privilege
must be confined to the statements or issue that gave rise to the question
of privilege (V, 5075–5077; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; May 31, 1984,
p. 14623). Debate on a privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
action against a Member, although it may include comparisons with other
such actions taken by or reported to the House for purposes of measuring
severity of punishment, may not extend to the conduct of another sitting
Member not the subject of a committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
The question whether a Member should be relieved from committee service
is debatable only within very narrow limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p.
19056). Debate on a resolution electing a Member to a committee is con-
fined to the election of that Member and should not extend to that commit-
tee’s agenda (July 10, 1995, p. 18258).
[745]
Although Speakers have entertained appeals from decisions as to

irrelevancy, they have held such appeals not debatable (V, 5056–5063).
Under prior practice in Committee of the Whole, remarks did not have
to be confined to the subject during general debate (V, 5233–5238; VIII,
2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but under modern practice a special order
providing for consideration of a measure in the Committee of the Whole
typically does require such relevance in debate. All five-minute debate in
Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject (V, 5240–5256), even
on a pro forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in which case debate must relate
to an issue in the pending portion of the bill (VIII, 2592, 2593); thus, if
a general provisions title is pending debate may relate to any agency fund-
ed by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).
Recognition
2. When two or more Members,
§ 949. Speaker’s power
Delegates, or the Resident Commis-

of recognition.
sioner rise at once, the Speaker shall name the

who is first to speak. * * *
This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978). Before the House recodified
2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on presen-
tation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member who
arose first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal from such recognition
(II, 1429–1434). But as the membership and business of the House in-
creased it became necessary to establish and adhere to a fixed order of
business, and recognitions, instead of pertaining to the individual Member,
necessarily came to pertain to the bill or other business that would be
before the House under the rule regulating the order of business. Hence
the necessity that the Speaker should not be compelled to heed the claims
of Members as individuals was expressed in 1879 in a report from the
Committee on Rules, which declared that ‘‘in the nature of the case discre-
tion must be lodged with the presiding officer’’ (II, 1424). And in 1881
the Speaker declined to entertain an appeal from his decision on a question
of recognition (II, 1425–1428), establishing thereby a line of precedent that
continues (VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762). It also has been determined
that a Member may not invoke clause 6 of rule XIV (formerly rule XXV)
(§ 884, supra), providing that questions relating to the priority of business
shall be decided by a majority without debate, to inhibit the Speaker’s
power of recognition under this clause (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p.
26249).
[746]
Recognition for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order

§ 950. One-minute and
of recognition therefor are entirely within the discretion
special-order of the Speaker (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001,
speeches. p. 3027), who may decline a unanimous-consent request
to increase the number (Sept. 16, 2008, p. l; Mar. 21,
2010, p. l). When the House has a heavy legislative schedule, the Speaker
may refuse to recognize Members for that purpose until the completion
of legislative business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, § 73; July 24, 1980, p.
19386). It is not in order to raise as a question of the privileges of the
House a resolution directing the Speaker to recognize for such speeches,
because a question of privilege cannot amend or interpret the Rules of
the House (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762–64). The modern practice of limiting
recognition before legislative business to one minute began August 2, 1937
(p. 8004) and was reiterated by Speaker Rayburn on March 6, 1945 (Desch-
ler, ch. 21, § 6.1).
Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies
of alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
speeches between majority and minority Members (Speaker O’Neill, Aug.
8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 101st Congress, the Chair
continued the practice of alternating recognition for one-minute speeches
but began a practice of recognizing Members suggested by their party lead-
ership before others in the well (Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406). From August
8, 1984, through February 23, 1994, the Speaker also followed an an-
nounced policy of recognizing Members of the same party within a given
category in the order in which their unanimous-consent requests for special
orders were granted (Speaker O’Neill, Aug. 8, 1984, p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993,
p. 106). On February 24, 1994, the Speaker announced a new policy gov-
erning recognition for special-order speeches. The Speaker announced that
the Chair would recognize for speeches of five minutes or less before longer
speeches, and that Members may not enter requests for five-minute special
orders earlier than one week in advance. With respect to recognition for
longer special orders, the Speaker announced a policy of recognition that
would depend not on orders by unanimous consent but, rather, on lists
submitted by the respective party Leaders. This policy, the result of bipar-
tisan negotiations, was a departure from the modern practice as described
in Deschler, ch. 21, § 7.1 (special-order speeches following legislative busi-
ness are enabled only by unanimous consent). In the 112th Congress, the
Speaker announced a new policy (effective February 1, 2011) of recognizing
only for longer speeches following legislative business (Speaker Boehner,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Under the Speaker’s policy: (1) recognition does not
extend beyond 10 p.m.; (2) recognition is limited to four hours equally di-
vided between the majority and minority; (3) the first hour for each party
is reserved to its respective Leader or designee; (4) the second hour for
each party is divided into two 30-minute periods; (5) time within each
party is allotted in accord with a list submitted to the Chair by the respec-
tive Leader; (6) recognition for the first hour alternates between the parties
[747]
from day to day; (7) the respective Leaders may establish additional guide-
lines for entering requests; and (8) the Speaker may withdraw recognition
should circumstances warrant (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p.
1154; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 5096;
May 12, 1995, p. 12765; Jan. 21, 1997, p. 460; Jan. 31, 2001, p. 1078;
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Although the Chair’s calculation of time consumed under one-minute
speeches is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize ma-
jority and then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan man-
ner (Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19319). The Speaker will traditionally recognize a
Member only once by unanimous consent for a one-minute speech, and
will not entertain a second request (May 1, 1985, p. 9995; July 21, 2009,
p. l). The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour reserved
for special orders only on designations (and reallocations) by the leadership
concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. 25605). A Member
who is recognized to control time during special orders may yield to col-
leagues for such amounts of time as the Member may deem appropriate
but may not yield blocks of time to be enforced by the Chair. Members
regulate the duration of their yielding by reclaiming the time when appro-
priate (Jan. 31, 2001, p. 1078). Under a former stricture, the Chair did
not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend a five-minute special-
order speech (Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7152; Sept. 29, 2009, p. l), to recognize
for a special-order speech after midnight (May 10, 2007, p. 12222), or to
extend a special-order speech beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. 24394).
The Chair may withdraw recognition during a special-order speech, de-
clare a recess under clause 12 of rule I, and following the recess confer
recognition for the remainder of the speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p. l).
Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House has
§ 951. Morning-hour
by unanimous consent agreed (without prejudice to the
debate. Speaker’s ultimate power of recognition under this rule)
to convene early on certain days for morning-hour de-
bate (e.g., Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11459; June 8, 1994,
p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995,
p. 5096). On May 12, 1995 (p. 12765), the House extended and modified
the above order to accommodate earlier convening times after mid-May
of each year. Through the 111th Congress, the order applied only to Mon-
days and Tuesdays. Beginning on February 1, 2011, the House expanded
the order to include Wednesdays and Thursdays. The above-cited orders
of the House: (1) postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the
Pledge of Allegiance during morning-hour debate; and (2) require the Chair
to recognize Members for not more than five minutes each, alternating
between the majority and minority parties in accord with lists supplied
by their respective Leaders. Beginning in the 112th Congress, the order
was altered to allow the filing of privileged reports during morning-hour
debate (Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Under the customary order of the House estab-
lishing morning-hour debate, the Chair does not entertain a unanimous-
[748]
Rule XVII, clause 2 § 952–§ 953
consent request to extend a five-minute period of recognition (Apr. 28, 1998,

p. 6924; Nov. 12, 2002, p. 21327). During morning-hour debate it is not
in order to request that a name be removed from a list of cosponsors of
a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. 8544).
In the 103d Congress the House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct
§ 952. ‘‘Oxford-style’’
at a time designated by the Speaker structured debate
debates. on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the Speak-
er, with four participants from each party in a format
announced by the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; Mar. 11, 1994, p. 4772;
May 23, 1994, p. 11459; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648).
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ‘‘Oxford-style’’ de-
bates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. 5088; May 4, 1994, p. 9300; July 20, 1994, p.
17245). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time was
used for a ‘‘Lincoln-Douglas-style’’ debate involving five Members, with
one Member acting as ‘‘moderator’’ by controlling the hour under this clause
(Nov. 3, 1993, p. 27312).
Although there is no appeal from the Speaker’s recognition, the Speaker
§ 953. Speaker
is not a free agent in determining who is to have the
governed by usage in floor. The practice of the House establishes rules from
recognitions. which the Speaker should not depart. For example,
when the order of business brings before the House a
certain bill the Speaker must first recognize, for motions for its disposition,
the Member who represents the committee that has reported it (II, 1447;
VI, 306, 514). This is not necessarily the chair of the committee, for a
chair who, in committee, has opposed the bill, must yield the prior recogni-
tion to a member of the committee who has favored the bill (II, 1449).
Usually, however, the chair has charge of the bill and is entitled at all
stages to prior recognition for allowable motions intended to expedite it
(II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296, 300). This principle does not, however, apply to
the chair of the Committee of the Whole (II, 1453). Once the proponent
of a pending motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-
consent request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the pro-
ponent yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). In the case of a motion
to instruct conferees (Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377), a measure on which the
previous question has been ordered without intervening motion (Feb. 13,
2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010, p. l; July 1, 2010, p. l (Chair cor-
rected himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. l, p. l, p. l, p. l), or a measure
on which time has been yielded under the hour rule solely for the purpose
of debate (Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29061; Nov. 7, 2007, p. l), the Chair will
entertain a unanimous-consent request regarding the disposition of the
measure only if the majority manager yields for that purpose. The Member
who introduces a bill has no claim to recognition as opposed to members
of the reporting committee, but in cases in which a proposition is brought
directly before the House the mover is entitled to prior recognition for
motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302–305, 417; VIII, 2454, 3231).
This principle applies to the makers of certain motions. Thus, the Member
[749]
on whose motion the enacting clause of a bill is stricken in Committee

of the Whole is entitled to prior recognition when the bill is reported to
the House (V, 5337; VIII, 2629). Where a Member raises an objection in
a joint session to count the electoral vote, and the Houses separate to
consider the objection, the Chair first recognizes that Member (III, 1956;
Jan. 6, 2005, p. 199) or a co-signer of the objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145–
7). But a Member may not, by offering a debatable motion of higher privi-
lege than the pending motion, deprive the Member in charge of the bill
of possession of the floor for debate (II, 1460–1463; VI, 290, 297–299; VIII,
2454, 3193, 3197, 3259). The Member in charge of the bill and having
the floor may demand the previous question, although another Member
may propose to offer a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); but the
motion of higher privilege must be put before the previous question (V,
5480; VIII, 2684). When the House establishes a special order for consider-
ation of a measure, only a manager identified by the terms of that order
is recognized to call up the measure (Deschler, ch. 21, § 1.25; Jan. 18, 2007,
p. 1624). The Member who has been recognized to call up a measure in
the House has priority of recognition to move the previous question there-
on, even over the chair of the committee reporting that measure (Oct. 1,
1986, p. 27468). The fact that a Member has the floor on one matter does
not necessarily entitle the Member to prior recognition on a motion relating
to another matter (II, 1464). It is because the Speaker is governed by these
usages that the Speaker often asks a Member seeking recognition, ‘‘For
what purpose does the gentleman (or gentlewoman) seek recognition?’’.
By this question the Speaker determines whether the Member proposes
business or a motion that is entitled to precedence, and may deny recogni-
tion (VI, 289–291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975–78; Speaker
Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). For example, a
Member’s mere revelation that the Member seeks to offer a motion to ad-
journ does not suffice to render that motion ‘‘pending,’’ and thus the Chair
remains able to declare a short recess under clause 12 of rule I (Oct. 28,
1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. l). There is
no appeal from such denial of recognition (II, 1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429,
2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). Where the Chair confers recognition
solely for the reading of a matter and not for debate, the Member so recog-
nized may not yield to another for debate (Jan. 6, 2011, p. l). Recognition
for parliamentary inquiry lies in the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541; Mar.
23, 2007, p. 7420, p. 7423), who may take a parliamentary inquiry under
advisement (VIII, 2174), especially if not related to the pending proceedings
(Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8273).
The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest rank-
ing elected leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader) addi-
tional time to make their remarks in debate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27834; May
18, 2004, pp. 9944, 9945) and only the nominal time yielded for such debate
is charged to the manager (June 26, 2009, p. l; June 24, 2010, p. l).
With regard to recognition for such additional time, the Chair has refused
[750]
to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June 26, 2009, p. l) and to announce

the amount of time consumed (June 26, 2009, p. l; May 27, 2010, p. l).
When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is
§ 954. Loss of right to
decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes
recognition by to the Member who the Speaker perceives to be leading
Member in charge. the opposition to the motion (II, 1465–1468; VI, 308).
Under this principle control of a measure passes when
the House disagrees to a recommendation of the committee reporting the
measure (II, 1469–1472) or when the Committee of the Whole reports the
measure adversely (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430). Similarly, this principle applies
when a motion for the previous question is rejected (VI, 308). However,
a Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question may
be preempted by a motion of higher precedence (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969,
20975–78). On the other hand, the mere defeat of an amendment proposed
by the Member in charge does not cause the right to prior recognition
to pass to an opponent (II, 1478, 1479).
Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been
ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed
to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial motion
to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975,
p. 12761). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a point
of order, which is equivalent to its rejection by the House, does not give
the Member raising the question of order the right to the floor (VIII, 3284)
and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313). In most cases,
when the House refuses to order the previous question on a conference
report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473–1477; V, 6396). However, control
of a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement passes
to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to dispose thereof (Aug.
6, 1993, p. 19582).
In debate the members of the committee—except the Committee of the
§ 955. Prior right of
Whole (II, 1453)—are entitled to priority of recognition
Members to for debate (II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion
recognition for to lay a proposition on the table is in order before the
debate. Member entitled to prior recognition for debate has
begun remarks (V, 5391–5395; VI, 412; VIII, 2649,
2650).
In recognizing for debate under general House rules the Chair alternates
between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter, preferring
members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439–1444). When a mem-
ber of a committee has occupied the floor in favor of a measure the Chair
attempts to recognize a Member opposing next, even though not a member
of the committee (II, 1445). The principle of alternation is not insisted
on rigidly where a limited time is controlled by Members, as in the 40
minutes of debate on motions for suspension of the rules and the previous
question (II, 1442).
[751]
As to motions to suspend the rules, which are in order on Mondays,

§ 956. Exceptions to
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, the Speaker exercises dis-
the usages cretion in recognition (V, 6791–6794, 6845; VIII, 3402–
constraining the 3404). The Speaker also may decline to recognize a
Speaker as to Member who desires to ask unanimous consent to set
recognitions.
aside the rules in order to consider a bill not otherwise
in order, this being the way of signifying objection to the request. But
this authority did not extend to the former Consent Calendar. Where the
previous question was ordered to passage of a bill without intervening
motion except recommittal, the Chair declined to entertain a unanimous-
consent request to further amend the pending bill as an exercise of the
discretionary power of recognition under this clause (Feb. 10, 2000, p.
1019). The Chair has declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request
to print a separate volume of tributes given in memory of a deceased former
Member absent concurrence of the Joint Committee on Printing (Aug. 1,
1996, p. 21247). The Speaker has announced and enforced a policy of confer-
ring recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of
certain legislation only when assured that the majority and minority floor
and committee leaderships have no objection. This policy includes: (1) re-
quests relating to reported measures (July 23, 1993, p. 16820; Feb. 10,
2011, p. l) and unreported measures (see, e.g., Dec. 15, 1981, p. 31590;
Nov. 16, 1983, p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26, 1984, p. 449; Jan.
31, 1984, p. 1063; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1989, p. 89; Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 64; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106; Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10297; Mar. 20, 2010, p. l);
(2) requests for immediate consideration of matters (separately unreported)
comprising a portion of a measure already passed by the House (Dec. 19,
1985, p. 38356); (3) requests to consider a motion to suspend the rules
and pass an unreported bill (on a nonsuspension day) (Aug. 12, 1986, p.
21126; Mar. 30, 1998, p. 5153); (4) requests to permit consideration of (non-
germane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20, 1995,
p. 37877; June 27, 2002, p. 11838); (5) requests to permit expedited consid-
eration of measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the requirement
that a bill be referred to committee for 30 legislative days before a motion
to discharge may be presented under clause 2 of rule XV (formerly clause
3 of rule XXVII) (June 9, 1992, p. 13900); (6) requests relating to Senate-
passed bills on the Speaker’s table (Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29347; Jan. 3, 1996,
p. 58; Aug. 2, 1999, p. 18942), including one identical to a House-passed
bill (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799) and a Senate concurrent resolution to correct
an enrollment (Oct. 20, 1998, p. 27358); (7) requests to dispose of Senate
amendments to House bills on the Speaker’s table (Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200,
210; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510). The Speaker will recognize for an ‘‘omnibus’’
unanimous-consent request (one request disposing of various measures)
only when assured that the request, and each constituent part of the re-
quest, has been cleared under this policy (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20339; Oct.
16, 2002, p. 20765; Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22513). The Speaker’s enforcement
of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10298) and is a
[752]
matter of discretionary recognition in the first instance (Sept. 27, 2006,

p. 20065). ‘‘Floor leadership’’ in this context has been construed to apply
only to the Minority Leader and not to the entire hierarchy of minority
leadership, where the Chair had been assured that the Minority Leader
had been consulted (Apr. 25, 1985, p. 9415). It is not a proper parliamentary
inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under
the Speaker’s guidelines to clear a unanimous-consent request (Feb. 1,
1996, p. 2260; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510), but the Chair may indicate cog-
nizance of a source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799). The
Chair will not issue an advisory opinion on whether an amendment would
be germane to a given proposition for purposes of obtaining clearances
under this policy (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l). With respect to unanimous-consent
requests to dispose of Senate amendments to House bills on the Speaker’s
table, the Chair will entertain such a request only if made by the chair
of the committee with jurisdiction, or by another committee member au-
thorized to make the request (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, p.
2675; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 86; Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Deschler, ch. 21,
§ 1.23). For a discussion of recognition for unanimous-consent requests to
vary procedures in the Committee of the Whole governed by a special order
adopted by the House, see § 993, infra.
2. * * * A Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner may not occupy more
§ 957. The hour rule in
debate.
than one hour in debate on a ques-
tion in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union except as
otherwise provided in this rule.
This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) dates from 1841, when
the increase of membership had made it necessary to prevent the making
of long speeches that sometimes occupied three or four hours each (V, 4978).
was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
This provision applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well as
to debate on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448). When the time for debate
has been placed within the control of those representing the two sides
of a question, it must be assigned to Members in accordance with this
rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). A Member recognized to call up a privileged
resolution may yield the floor upon expiration of the hour without moving
the previous question, thereby permitting another Member to be recognized
for a successive hour (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27838). Under this clause a Member
recognized for one hour for a ‘‘special-order’’ speech in the House may not
extend that time, even by unanimous consent (Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794; July
12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; Oct. 23, 1997, p. 23254). The Chair has advised
that the Member in charge of measure would be recognized for unanimous-
[753]
consent requests to enlarge the time for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. l; Feb.
13, 2009, p. l). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced the intention
to strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457–552).
The Chair has announced that the Chair would accommodate as many
unanimous-consent requests to insert remarks in debate as necessary pro-
vided they comprise a simple, declarative statement of the Member’s atti-
tude toward the pending measure; however, any embellishment of such
a request with other oratory may become an imposition on the time of
the Member who yielded for that purpose (see, e.g., Mar. 24, 1995, p. 9215;
June 27, 2002, p. 11849; May 9, 2003, p. 11039; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793;
Nov. 7, 2009, p. l; Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
For a discussion of morning-hour debate and ‘‘Oxford-style’’ debates, see
§§ 951–952, supra.
Managing debate
3. (a) The Member, Delegate, or Resident
§ 958. The opening and Commissioner who calls up a meas-
closing of general
debate. ure may open and close debate
thereon. When general debate ex-
tends beyond one day, that Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner shall be entitled to
one hour to close without regard to the time
used in opening.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a
§ 959. Member to Member, Delegate, or Resident
speak but once to the
same question; right Commissioner may not speak more
to close controlled
debate.
than once to the same question
without leave of the House.
(c) A manager of a measure who opposes an
amendment thereto is entitled to close controlled
debate thereon.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) (formerly clause 3 of rule XIV) were adopted in
1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996). Paragraph (b) (formerly clause 6
of rule XIV) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraphs (a) and
(c) were found in former clause 3 of rule XIV and paragraph (b) was found
in former clause 6 of rule XIV. The recodification also added paragraph
(c) to codify modern practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[754]
Where a special order of business allocates control of debate to specified

Members, another may not separately claim time on the basis of opposition
(Dec. 16, 2010, p. l).
In the later practice this right to close may not be exercised after the
previous question is ordered (V, 4997–5000). This clause applies to general
debate in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6283). A majority
manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of jurisdiction
is entitled to close general debate; for example, as against another manager
representing an additional committee of jurisdiction (May 13, 1998, p. 9042,
9050); or as against the subject of a disciplinary resolution (July 24, 2002,
p. 14313). If an order of the House divides debate on an unreported measure
among four Members, the Chair will recognize for closing speeches in the
reverse order of the original allocation (Mar. 24, 1999, p. 5454). If a special
order of the House allocates time for debate, which is further fractionalized
under a later order by unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes for closing
speeches in the reverse order of their original recognitions, concluding with
the Member who opened the debate (e.g., Mar. 17, 2011, p. l). This is
true even when the manager who opened debate is opposed, as in the
case of a measure reported adversely (July 22, 1998, p. 16726; July 27,
1999, p. 18012; June 21, 2000, pp. 11704, 11721; July 26, 2000, p. 16437).
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that time unused
by a minority manager in general debate is considered as yielded back
upon recognition of the majority manager to close general debate (Feb.
27, 2002, p. 2059). A Member may yield a final amount of time to another
for purposes of closing (Mar. 17, 2011, p. l). For further discussion of
management of time for general debate and for debate on amendments
in the Committee of the Whole, see § 978, infra.
A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again
to an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point of order
that a Member has spoken already after that Member has begun speaking
(V, 4992). Paragraph (b) is often circumscribed by modern practice and
by special orders of business that vest control of debate in designated Mem-
bers and permit them to yield more than once to other Members (Apr.
5, 2000, p. 4497). For a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more
than once under the five-minute rule, see § 981, infra. The right to close
may not be exercised after the previous question has been ordered (V,
4997–5000). The right to close does not belong to a Member who has merely
moved to reconsider the vote on a bill where not a member of the reporting
committee (V, 4995). The right of a contestant in an election case to close
when permitted to speak in the contest has been a matter of discussion
(V, 5001).
As codified in paragraph (c), the manager of a bill or other representative
of the committee and not the proponent of an amendment has the right
to close controlled debate on an amendment (VIII, 2581; July 16, 1981,
p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p. 7841; June 5, 1985, p. 14302; July 10, 1985,
p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28824; May 2, 1988, p. 9638; May 5, 1988,
[755]
p. 9961), including the minority manager (June 29, 1984, p. 20253; Aug.
14, 1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403; Oct. 27, 1997, p. 23212; July
26, 2002, p. 14972) and including the manager of a measure that was
reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1355). This is so even if the manager
is also the proponent of a pending amendment to the amendment (Mar.
16, 1983, p. 5792). The Chair will assume that the manager of a measure
is representing the committee of jurisdiction even if the measure called
up is unreported (Apr. 15, 1996, p. 7421; July 24, 1998, p. 17263), if an
unreported compromise text is made in order as original text in lieu of
committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28650), or if the committee re-
ported the measure without recommendation (Feb. 12, 1997, pp. 2108,
2109). If the pending text includes a provision recommended by a com-
mittee of sequential referral, a member of that committee is entitled to
close debate in opposition to an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp.
12084–87). If the rule providing for the consideration of an unreported
measure designates managers who do not serve on a committee of jurisdic-
tion, those managers are entitled to close controlled debate in opposition
to an amendment thereto (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19325). The majority manager
of the bill will be recognized to control time in opposition to an amendment
thereto, without regard to the party affiliation of the proponent, where
the special order allocated control to ‘‘a Member opposed’’ (May 13, 1998,
p. 9110). The right to close debate in opposition to an amendment devolves
to a member of the committee of jurisdiction who derived debate time by
unanimous consent from a manager who originally had the right to close
debate (Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 19961–63). Such right to close may not devolve
to the manager of a bill who derived debate time by unanimous consent
from a non-committee Member controlling time in opposition because that
right may be transferred only where there has been an unbroken line of
committee affiliation in opposition to the amendment (July 17, 2003, pp.
18585–87). The proponent of a first-degree amendment who controls time
in opposition to a second-degree amendment that favors the original bill
over the first-degree amendment does not qualify as a ‘‘manager’’ within
the meaning of paragraph (c) (June 15, 2000, pp. 11040, 11047).
Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the amendment
may close debate if representing the position of the reporting committee
(Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660); for example, the proponent of a ‘‘manager’s
amendment’’ may close controlled debate thereon if a member of the com-
mittee does not claim time in opposition (May 13, 1998, p. 9092). Similarly,
the proponent may close debate if neither a committee representative nor
a Member assigned a managerial role by the governing special order oppose
the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22057; May 6, 1998, pp. 8307, 8316;
July 14, 1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, pp. 18585–87). If a committee rep-
resentative is allocated control of time in opposition to an amendment not
by recognition from the Chair but by unanimous-consent request of a third
Member who was allocated the time by the Chair, then the committee
representative is not entitled to close debate as against the proponent (July
[756]
24, 1997, pp. 15684, 15685, 15689). Similarly, the proponent of the amend-
ment may close debate if no representative from the reporting committee
opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p. 7467);
if the measure is unreported and has no ‘‘manager’’ under the terms of
a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); or if a measure is being managed
by a single reporting committee and the Member controlling time in opposi-
tion, though a member of the committee having jurisdiction over the
amendment, does not represent the reporting committee (Nov. 9, 1995,
p. 31964).
Call to order
4. (a) If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
§ 960. The call to order missioner, in speaking or otherwise,
for words spoken in
debate. transgresses the Rules of the
House, the Speaker shall, or a
may, call to order the offending Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall im-
mediately sit down unless permitted on motion
of another Member, Delegate, or the Resident
Commissioner to explain. If a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner is called to order, the
making the call to order shall indicate the words
excepted to, which shall be taken down in writ-
ing at the Clerk’s desk and read aloud to the
House.
(b) The Speaker shall decide the validity of a
call to order. The House, if appealed to, shall de-
cide the question without debate. If the decision
is in favor of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner called to order, the Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner shall be at lib-
erty to proceed, but not otherwise. If the case re-
quires it, an offending Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner shall be liable to censure
[757]
or such other punishment as the House may

consider proper. A Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner may not be held to answer a
call to order, and may not be subject to the cen-
sure of the House therefor, if further debate or
other business has intervened.
The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of para-
graph (b) (formerly clause 4 of rule XIV) were adopted in 1789 and amended
in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175). The last sentence of paragraph (a) and the
last sentence of paragraph (b) (formerly clause 5 of rule XIV) were adopted
in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice of writing down objec-
tionable words had been established in 1808. When the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former clauses 4 and 5
of rule XIV into a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Members transgressing the rules of debate and decorum may be called
to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479), a
§ 961. Words taken
down and other calls Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161–5163, 5175, 5192), or
to order for a Delegate (II, 1295). A Member may initiate a call to
unparliamentary order either by making a point of order that a Member
debate.
is transgressing the rules or by formally demanding
that words be taken down under this clause (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22897,
22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 1996,
p. 24759). A Member’s comportment in debate may constitute a breach
of decorum even though the content of the Member’s speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Except for naming the offending
Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish the Member
(II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also § 366, supra). The
House may by proper motions under this clause dictate the consequences
of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out of order (May 26, 1983,
p. 14048). As an exercise of recognition, the Chair’s determination that
a Member’s time in debate has expired is not subject to appeal (Mar. 22,
1996 p. 6086; see also §§ 622, 629, supra). Furthermore, a Member speaking
while not under recognition (as when speaking beyond the allotted time)
is not entitled to in-House amplification (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; see also
§ 684, supra).
As discussed in § 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to initiate
the call to order of a Member who engages in personality in debate with
respect to Members of the Senate, including an insertion in the Record
(Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct. 7, 1975, p. 32055; Feb. 27,
1997, pp. 2784, 2785). On the other hand, it is customary for the Chair
to await an initiative from the floor to call to order a Member who engages
in personality in debate with respect to another Member of the House
(June 29, 1987, p. 18072; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784,
2785). The Chair may take initiative to call to order a Member engaging
[758]
in verbal outburst either following expiration of recognition for debate

(Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081) or during recognition of another Member (June
5, 2003, p. 13884). The Chair may order the offending Member to be seated
(June 5, 2003, p. 13884) or may deny further recognition, subject to the
will of the House on the question of proceeding in order (Speaker O’Neill,
June 16, 1982, p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).
The Chair may admonish a Member for words spoken in debate and request
that they be removed from the Record even before a demand that the words
be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27345).
This clause (formerly clause 5) prohibits the taking down of words after
intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p. 23032; Mar.
28, 1996, p. 6934) and the Chair’s ruling in that regard is subject to appeal
(Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899). However, a Member standing and seeking recogni-
tion at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that words
be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, and a re-
quest that a Member uttering objectionable words yield does not forfeit
the right to demand that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528). Action
taken by the Chair to determine whether a point of order from the floor
is intended as a demand that words be taken down is not such intervening
debate or business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984,
p. 28522). Similarly, a parliamentary inquiry concerning the propriety of
words just spoken in debate does not render untimely a demand that the
words be taken down as unparliamentary (May 6, 2004, p. 8554). However,
an improper parliamentary inquiry concerning the substantive content of
the words does render untimely such demand (July 20, 2005, pp. 16653,
16654). Although under this clause a Member may not be held to answer
a call to order if further debate or business has intervened, the Chair may
under clause 2 of rule I generally admonish Members to preserve proper
decorum even after intervening debate (Dec. 5, 2001, p. 24002). For in-
stances in which the Chair admonished Members for improper references
to the Senate after brief intervening debate, see § 371, supra.
While a demand that a Member’s words be taken down is pending, that
Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25,
1995, p. 2352), and no Member may engage the Chair until the demand
has been disposed of (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913; Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32472).
If two Members consecutively demand that each others’ words be taken
down as unparliamentary, the Chair advises both Members to be seated
and then directs the Clerk to report the first words objected to (June 19,
1996, p. 14655). An offending Member may be directed by the Chair to
be seated even if a formal demand that the Member’s words be taken down
is not pending; for example, if a Member declines to proceed in order at
the directive of the Chair after points of order have been sustained against
unparliamentary references in debate, the Chair may, under rule I and
this rule, deny the Member further recognition as a disposition of the ques-
tion of order, subject to the will of the House on the question of proceeding
[759]
in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23427; Sept. 18, 1996,
p. 23535; see also § 366, supra).
The Chair may entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or
modify words taken down either before (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, § 51.1)
or after (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, § 51.2) the words have been reported to
the House (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540, 2543, 2544; July 16, 1998, p. 15827;
June 28, 2000, pp. 12771, 12776). Unanimous consent is not required for
a Member to withdraw a demand that words be taken down before a ruling
by the Chair (June 18, 1986, p. 14232).
The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether
they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187) as read by the Clerk
and not as otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p. 13902).
When a Member denies that the words taken down are the exact words
used, the question as to the words is put to the House for decision (V,
5179, 5180). Where demands are made to take down words both as spoken
in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the offending Member is
permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair may rule simulta-
neously on both (July 25, 1996, p. 19170). A decision of the Chair on words
taken down is subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25780; Apr. 9, 2003,
p. 9005).
The rule permits a motion that an offending Member be permitted to
explain before the Chair rules on the words taken down, and the Chair
has discretion to ask for explanation before ruling on the words (Feb. 1,
1940, p. 954). The Chair also may recognize an offending Member, per-
mitted by unanimous consent, to explain words ruled out of order (Nov.
10, 1971, p. 40442).
If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor
(V, 5196–5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352) and may not proceed on the same
day without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Aug. 21,
1974, p. 29652; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832), even on
yielded time (V, 5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in the Record
(Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), but still may exercise the right to vote or to demand
the yeas and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not take the issue off the
floor, and other Members may proceed to debate the same subject (July
25, 1996, p. 19170). The offending Member will not lose the floor if the
House permits the Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., May 10, 1990,
p. 9992), which motion may be stated on the initiative of the Chair (Oct.
8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9676; July 25, 1996, p. 1970; June
13, 2002, p. 10232) or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 1970;
Mar. 21, 2007, p. 7074). The motion is not inconsistent with the immediate
consequence of the call to order because this clause (formerly clause 4)
also permits the House to determine the extent of the sanction for a given
breach (Oct. 10, 1991, p. 26102). The motion is debatable within narrow
limits of relevance under the hour rule, and consequently also is subject
to the motion to lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757).
[760]
Where a Member has been called to order not in response to a formal

demand that words be taken down but in response to a point of order,
the former practice was to test the opinion of the House by a motion ‘‘that
the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order’’ (V, 5188, 5189; VIII, 2534).
Under the modern practice the Chair either may invite the offending Mem-
ber to proceed in order (see, e.g., Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22898) or, particularly
if admonitions have been ignored, may deny the Member recognition for
the balance of the time for which recognized, subject to the will of the
House, as by a vote on the question whether the Member should be per-
mitted to proceed in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p.
23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24759).
Words taken down and ruled out of order by the Chair are subject to
a motion that they be stricken or expunged from the Record. This motion
has precedence (VIII, 2538–2541; Aug. 21, 1974, p. 29652). Unanimous
consent to expunge such words often is granted upon the initiative of the
Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992; June 13, 2002, p. 10232), and is debatable
within narrow limits (VIII, 2539; Speaker Martin, June 12, 1947, p. 6896).
However, the motion may not be entertained in the Committee of the Whole
(Feb. 18, 1941, p. 1126) or offered by the Member called to order (Feb.
11, 1941, pp. 894, 899).
When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they
are taken down and read at the Clerk’s desk, and the Committee rises
automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports them to the House (II,
1257–1259, 1348). Action in the House on words reported from the Com-
mittee of the Whole is limited to the words reported (VIII, 2528), and it
is not in order as a question of privilege in the House to propose censure
of a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of the Whole but
not reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported to the House from
Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by decision of the Chair
and any associated action by the House), the Committee resumes its sitting
without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).
The House has censured a Member for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254,
1259, 1305; VI, 236). The House has proceeded to consider censure or other
action although business may have intervened in certain exceptional cases,
such as when disorderly words are part of an occurrence constituting a
breach of privilege (II, 1657), when a Member’s language has been inves-
tigated by a committee (II, 1655), when a Member has reiterated on the
floor certain published charges (III, 2637), when a Member has uttered
words alleged to be treasonable (II, 1252), or when a Member has uttered
an attack on the Speaker (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 19, 1995,
p. 1599).
For a discussion of resolving the use of objectional exhibits that are a
breach of decorum, see § 622, supra; and for a discussion of resolving the
use of objectional exhibits that are not necessarily a breach of decorum,
see clause 6, § 963, infra.
[761]
Comportment
5. When the Speaker is putting a question or
§ 962. Decorum of addressing the House, a Member,
Members in the Hall.
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
may not walk out of or across the Hall. When a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is
speaking, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner may not pass between the person
speaking and the Chair. During the session of
the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may not wear a hat or remain by
the Clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the
counting of ballots. A person on the floor of the
House may not smoke or use a mobile electronic
device that impairs decorum. The Sergeant-at-
Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of
this clause.
Until the 104th Congress this clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XIV)
was made up of provisions adopted in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the
104th Congress a reference to the former Doorkeeper was deleted and a
prohibition against using any personal electronic office equipment was
added (secs. 201, 223, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 463, 469). However,
that prohibition was modified in the 108th Congress to cover only a wireless
telephone or personal computer (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7)
and again in the 112th Congress to cover any mobile electronic device
that impairs decorum (sec. 2(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Before
found in former clause 7 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Originally Members wore their hats during sessions, as in Parliament,
and the custom was not abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). The prohibition
against Members wearing hats in the Chamber while the House is in ses-
sion includes doffing a hat in tribute to a group (Speaker Foley, June 22,
1993, p. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560). In the 96th Congress the Speaker
announced that he considered as proper the customary and traditional
attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male Members and appro-
priate attire for female Members (where thermostat controls had been
raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House then adopted a resolu-
tion, offered as a question of the privileges of the House, requiring Members
to wear proper attire as determined by the Speaker, and denying noncom-
[762]
plying Members the privilege of the floor (July 17, 1979, pp. 19008, 19073).
In the 106th and 109th Congresses Members were reminded of the need
to be in proper attire in the Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654; June 20,
2006, p. 11895), and the Chair has so admonished a Member speaking
in debate without a jacket (Apr. 3, 2001, p. 5361). The donning of a distinc-
tive uniform of another occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. l).
In the 97th Congress, the Speaker announced during a vote by electronic
device that Members were not permitted under the traditions of the House
to wear overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 16, 1981, p. 31847).
Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the
Speaker announced that mobile electronic devices that impair decorum
include wireless telephones and personal computers, but that electronic
tablet devices may be used unobtrusively in the Chamber, although no
device may be used for still photography or for audio or video recording
(Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The Chair has also announced that
Members should disable wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g.,
June 12, 2000, p. 10369).
Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House (Oct.
15, 1990, p. 29248), nor during sittings of the Committee of the Whole
(Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition extends to smoking behind
the rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. 5640).
On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the legisla-
tive process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and privileges
of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in the House,
including particular adjurations against engaging in personalities, ad-
dressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front of the Member ad-
dressing the Chair (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105; Jan.
4, 1995, p. 551). The Chair has announced: (1) that Members should not
traffic, or linger in, the well of the House while another Member is speaking
(Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3541; Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6721; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37111),
including Members who may have been invited to the well by the Member
speaking (June 12, 2003, p. 14627); (2) that Members should not engage
in disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878),
including shouting interjections during debate (Feb. 13, 2009, p. l). Under
this provision the Chair may require a line of Members waiting to sign
a discharge petition to proceed to the rostrum from the far right-hand
aisle and require the line not to stand between the Chair and Members
engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House (May 21, 1998,
p. 10282).
A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and
the Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintain-
ing such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027). In the 105th Congress the
House adopted a resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the
House alleging indecorous behavior of a former Member and instructing
[763]
the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former Member from the floor, and rooms
leading thereto, until the resolution of a contested election to which he
was party (H. Res. 233, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).
Exhibits
6. When the use of an exhibit in debate is ob-
§ 963. Objections to jected to by a Member, Delegate, or
use of exhibits.
Resident Commissioner, the Chair,
in the discretion of the Chair, may submit the
question of its use to the House without debate.
This provision was rewritten in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1993, p. 49) to address the use of exhibits in debate rather than the reading
from papers. As rewritten in the 103d Congress, an objection to the use
of an exhibit automatically triggered a vote by the House on its use. The
clause was amended in the 107th Congress to give the Chair the discretion
to submit the question of its use to the House (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan.
XXX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
When the use of an exhibit in debate was objected to before the clause
was rewritten in the 107th Congress, the Chair immediately put the ques-
tion on whether use of the exhibit would be permitted (the Chair was
not determining a breach of decorum under clause 2 of rule I) (Nov. 1,
1995, p. 31154; Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689; July 31, 1996, p. 20689). The
Chair put the question without debate, and without requiring the objecting
Member to state the basis for the objection (Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689). As
such, an objection under this rule was not a point of order: it could have
been resolved by withdrawal of the exhibit; that failing, it amounted to
a demand that the Chair put to the House the question whether the exhibit
may be used (July 31, 1996, p. 20700).
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge the
accuracy or authenticity of the content of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
32142; July 11, 2001, p. 12977). The Chair has held that a second virtually
consecutive invocation of this provision, resulting in a second pair of votes
on use of a chart and on reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under
former clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of rule XVI) or former clause
4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700).
It is not in order to request that the voting display be turned on during
debate as an exhibit to accompany a Member’s debate (Oct. 12, 1998, p.
25770). For a discussion of the Speaker’s responsibility to preserve decorum
that may require the disallowance of exhibits in debate that would be de-
meaning to the House, or to any Member of the House, or that would
be disruptive of the decorum thereof, see § 622, supra.
[764]
The earlier form of the rule (formerly rule XXX), originally adopted in
§ 964. History of
1794 and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), ad-
former rule on dressed reading from papers. It recognized the right
reading of papers. of a Member under the general parliamentary law to
have read the paper on which the House is to vote (V,
5258), but when that paper had been read once, the reading could not
be repeated unless by order of the House (V, 5260). The right could be
abrogated by suspension of the rules (V, 5278–5284; VIII, 3400); but was
not abrogated simply by the fact that the current procedure was taking
place under the rule for suspension (V, 5273–5277). On a motion to refer
a report, the reading of it could be demanded as a matter of right, but
the latest ruling left to the House to determine whether or not an accom-
panying record of testimony should be read (V, 5261, 5262). In general
the reading of a report was held to be in the nature of debate (V, 5292);
but where a report presented facts and conclusions but no legislative propo-
sition, it was read if submitted for action (IV, 4663). Where a paper is
offered as involving a matter of privilege it may be read to the House
(III, 2597; VI, 606; VIII, 2599), rather than by the Speaker privately (III,
2546), but a Member may not, as a matter of right, require the reading
of a book or paper on suggestion that it contains matter infringing on
the privileges of the House (V, 5258).
The former rule XXX prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was
held to apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in exemplification
in debate (VIII, 2452, 2453; June 2, 1937, p. 6104; Aug. 5, 1949, p. 10859),
and the new form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) marks the modern relevance of that application. Al-
though Members may use exhibits such as charts during debate subject
to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to the authority to preserve order
and decorum under rule I (see § 622, supra), direct the removal from the
well of the House of a chart that is not being utilized during debate (Apr.
1, 1982, p. 6304), or that is otherwise disruptive of decorum.
The reading of papers other than those on which the vote was about
§ 965. Earlier practice.
to be taken was usually permitted without question (V,
5258). However, this privilege was subject to the au-
thority of the House if another Member objected (V, 5285–5291; VIII, 2597,
2602; Dec. 19, 1974, p. 41425; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34669). This principle
applied even to the Member’s own written speech (V, 5258; VIII, 2598),
to a report that the Member proposed to have read in his or her own time
or to read in his or her place (V, 5293), and to excerpts from the Congres-
sional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question was ordered, a Mem-
ber could not ask the decision of the House on a request for the reading
of a paper not before the House for action (V, 5296), even though it be
the report of the committee (V, 5294, 5295). For further discussion, see
§§ 432–436, supra. Pursuant to the former form of this rule, the consent
of the House for a Member to read a paper in debate only permitted the
Member seeking such permission to read as much of the paper as possible
[765]
in the time yielded or allotted to that Member, and did not necessarily
grant permission to read or to insert the entire document (Mar. 1, 1979,
p. 3748). Where a Member objected to another’s reading from a paper,
the Chair put the question without debate. It was not in order under the
guise of parliamentary inquiry to debate that question by indicating that
the objection was a dilatory tactic (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34672).
Galleries
7. During a session of the House, it shall not
§ 966. Gallery be in order for a Member, Delegate,
occupants not to be
introduced. or Resident Commissioner to intro-
duce to or to bring to the attention
of the House an occupant in the galleries of the
House. The Speaker may not entertain a request
for the suspension of this rule by unanimous
consent or otherwise.
This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House re-
codified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 8 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair takes the
initiative to enforce this clause (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, §§ 45.4, 45.7).
Congressional Record
8. (a) The Congressional Record shall be a
§ 967. Revisions of substantially verbatim account of
remarks in debate.
remarks made during the pro-
ceedings of the House, subject only to technical,
grammatical, and typographical corrections au-
thorized by the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner making the remarks.
(b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted
only by permission or order of the House.
(c) This clause establishes a standard of con-
§ 968. Standard of duct within the meaning of clause
conduct.
3(a)(2) of rule XI.
This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV (H. Res.
[766]
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under paragraph (a) a unanimous-consent request

to revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to make technical,
grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks uttered and (2) to
include in the Record additional remarks not uttered to appear in a distinc-
tive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent request does not permit
a Member to remove remarks actually uttered (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). For
example, remarks held irrelevant by the Chair may be removed from the
Record by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3663). Remarks ut-
tered while not under recognition (such as when a Member fails to heed
the gavel at the expiration of debate time) do not appear in the Record
(e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp.
10107, 10108). Paragraph (a) also applies to statements and rulings of
the Chair (Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866). For a discussion of rules relating to
the Congressional Record, see §§ 685–692, supra.
Secret sessions
9. When confidential communications are re-
§ 969. Secret session of ceived from the President, or when
the House.
the Speaker or a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner informs the House
that such individual has communications that
such individual believes ought to be kept secret
for the present, the House shall be cleared of all
persons except the Members, Delegates, Resi-
dent Commissioner, and officers of the House for
the reading of such communications, and de-
bates and proceedings thereon, unless otherwise
ordered by the House.
This provision (formerly rule XXIX), in a somewhat different form, was
adopted in 1792, although secret sessions had been held by the House
before that date. They continued to be held at times with considerable
frequency until 1830. In 1880, at the time of the general revision of the
rules, the House concluded to retain the rule, although it had been long
in disuse (V, 7247; VI, 434). Gender-based references were eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the
in former rule XXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The two Houses have legislated in secret session, transmitting their mes-
sages also in secrecy (V, 7250); but the House has declined to be bound
to secrecy by act of the Senate (V, 7249). Motions to remove the injunction
of secrecy should be made with closed doors (V, 7254). In 1843 a confidential
[767]
message from the President was referred without reading; but no motion
was made for a secret session (V, 7255).
The House and not the Committee of the Whole determines whether
the Committee may sit in executive session, and an inquiry relative to
whether the Committee of the Whole should sit in secret session is properly
addressed to the Speaker and not to the chair of the Committee of the
Whole (May 9, 1950, p. 6746; June 6, 1978, p. 16376; June 20, 1979, p.
15710). A Member seeking to offer the motion that the House resolve itself
into secret session must qualify, as provided by the rule, by asserting that
the Member has a secret communication to make to the House (June 6,
1978, p. 16376). A motion having been defeated, a Member may offer a
second motion on the same legislative day if having additional communica-
tions to make (May 10, 2007, p. 12114, 12177). The motion for a secret
session is not debatable (June 20, 1979, p. 15711; Mar. 31, 1998, p. 5229;
Sept. 26, 2006, p. 19781) but is subject to the motion to lay on the table
(May 10, 2007, p. 12177).
The following procedures apply during a secret session. The Member
who offers the motion may be recognized for one hour of debate after the
House resolves into secret session, and the normal rules of debate, includ-
ing the principle that no motions would be in order unless the manager
yields for that purpose, apply. The Speaker having found that a Member
has qualified to make the motion for a secret session, having confidential
communications to make, no point of order lies that the material in ques-
tion must be submitted to the Members to make that determination (the
motion for a secret session having been adopted by the House). No point
of order lies in secret session that employees designated by the Speaker
as essential to the proceedings, who have signed an oath of secrecy, may
not be present. A motion in secret session to make public the proceedings
therein is debatable for one hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At
the conclusion of debate in secret session, a Member may be recognized
to offer a motion that the session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp. 19057–
59).
Where the House has concluded a secret session and has not voted to
release the transcripts of that session, the injunction of secrecy remains
and the Speaker may informally refer the transcripts to appropriate com-
mittees for their evaluation and report to the House as to ultimate disposi-
tion to be made (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711–13). The House may subse-
quently by unanimous consent order printed in the Congressional Record
such proceedings, with appropriate deletions and revisions agreeable to
the committees (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).
On June 20, 1979, the House adopted by voice vote a motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to this rule (the first such
occasion since 1830), where the Member offering the motion had assured
the Speaker that he had confidential communications to make to the House
as required by the rule (pp. 15711–13). The Speaker pro tempore an-
nounced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret session
[768]
that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that the Chamber would
be cleared of all persons except Members and those officers and employees
specified by the Speaker whose attendance was essential to the functioning
of the secret session, who would be required to sign an oath of secrecy,
and that all proceedings in the secret session must be kept secret until
otherwise ordered by the House (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711–13).
On March 13, 2008, the House by unanimous consent authorized the
Chair to resolve the House into secret session pursuant to this rule, that
debate therein proceed without intervening motion for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Whip,
and that at the conclusion of debate the secret session be dissolved and
the House stand adjourned (p. l). Before commencement of that secret
session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of
clause 9; (2) announced a recess to clear the galleries and floor of all persons
except Members and necessary staff, to permit staff to sign a notarized
oath of secrecy, and to conduct a security sweep of the Chamber; (3) re-
minded Members of clause 13 of the Code of Official Conduct; (4) announced
that all proceedings in secret session would remain secret unless otherwise
ordered by the House; (5) announced that three bells would be rung ap-
proximately 15 minutes before the House reconvened for the secret session
(Mar. 13, 2008, p. l).
The House conducted a secret session in the 96th Congress to receive
confidential communications consisting of classified information in the pos-
session of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, which those committees had authorized to be
used in a secret session of the House if ordered. On that occasion the Speak-
er overruled a point of order against the motion for a secret session because
the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member claiming to have
confidential communications to make to the House, and because the Speak-
er was aware that the committee with possession of the materials had
authorized those materials to be used in a secret session (Feb. 25, 1980,
p. 3618). Another secret session was held in the 98th Congress pending
consideration of a bill amending the Intelligence Authorization Act to pro-
hibit United States support for military or paramilitary operations in Nica-
ragua (July 19, 1983, p. 19776).
Under the authority in clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker may convene a
classified briefing for Members on the House floor when the House is not
in session (e.g., Mar. 18, 1999, p. 4863).
[769]
§ 970–§ 971 Rule XVIII, clause 1
RULE XVIII
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE
STATE OF THE UNION
Resolving into the Committee of the Whole

1. Whenever the House resolves into the Com-
§ 970. Selection of mittee of the Whole House on the
Chair of Committee of
the Whole; and the state of the Union, the Speaker
power to preserve
order.
shall leave the chair after appoint-
ing a Member as Chair to preside.
In case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries or lobby, the Chair may cause the
same to be cleared.
This provision (formerly clause 1(a) of rule XXIII), adopted in 1880, was
made from two older rules dating from 1789 and modified in 1794 to provide
for the appointment of the Chair instead of the inconvenient method of
election by the Committee (IV, 4704). It was amended in the 103d Congress
to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to preside in the Com-
mittee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). That authority was
repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
468), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78, Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140),
and repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l). A Delegate first presided under the former authority on October
6, 1994 (p. 28533). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th
clause 1(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of the Whole
and, under direction of the Chair, maintains order (I,
chair of the 257). After repeated disturbances in the gallery, the
Committee of the Chair warned its occupants of possible prosecution
Whole. (under 40 U.S.C. 5104) and, in response to a parliamen-
tary inquiry, affirmed his authority to have the gallery
cleared (Apr. 15, 2011, p. l). The Chair recognizes for debate (V, 5003).
Like the Speaker, the Chair is forbidden to recognize for requests to sus-
pend the rule of admission to the floor (V, 7285).
The Chair decides questions of order arising in the Committee independ-
ently of the Speaker (V, 6927, 6928) but has declined to consider a question
that had arisen in the House just before the Committee began to sit (IV,
4725, 4726) or a question that may arise in the House in the future (June
21, 1995, p. 16682). For example, the Chair does not respond to a par-
[770]
Rule XVIII, clause 2 § 972
liamentary inquiry relating to possible proceedings in the House on a mo-

tion to recommit (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2079). The Chair does not take cog-
nizance of a ‘‘point of order’’ against the legislative schedule, its announce-
ment being the prerogative of the Leadership (Nov. 10, 1999, p. 29537).
Decisions of the Chair on questions of order may be appealed. In stating
the appeal the question is put as in the House: ‘‘Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?’’ The Committee of the
Whole may not postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (even
by unanimous consent); and an appeal of a ruling of the Chair may be
withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of right (June 8,
2000, p. 9954). An appeal is debatable in the Committee of the Whole
under the five-minute rule (June 24, 2003, pp. 15854–56). A majority vote
sustains the ruling (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159).
The Chair may direct the Committee to rise when the hour previously
fixed for adjournment of the House arrives, or when the hour previously
fixed by the House for consideration of other business arrives, in which
case the Chair reports in the regular way (IV, 4785; VIII, 2376; Aug. 22,
1974, p. 30077). However, if the Committee happens to be in session at
the hour fixed for the meeting of the House on a new legislative day, it
rests with the Committee and not with the Chair to determine whether
or not the Committee shall rise (V, 6736, 6737). The Chair may declare
an emergency recess under clause 12 of rule I. In rare cases wherein the
Chair has been defied or insulted, the Chair has directed the Committee
to rise, left the chair and, on the chair being taken by the Speaker, has
reported the facts to the House (II, 1350, 1651, 1653).
Although the Committee of the Whole does not control the Congressional
Record, the Chair may direct the exclusion of disorderly words spoken by
a Member after having been called to order (V, 6987), but may not deter-
mine the privileges of a Member under general ‘‘leave to print’’ (V, 6988).
Although arguments on a point of order may not be revised, extended,
or inserted, the Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent has allowed
a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to follow the ruling
thereon (July 13, 2000, p. 14095).
2. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and

in clause 6 of rule XV, the House
§ 972. Speaker’s
declaration into
resolves into the Committee of the
Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the

Whole pursuant to
special order.
Union by motion. When such a mo-
tion is entertained, the Speaker shall put the
question without debate: ‘‘Shall the House re-
solve itself into the Committee of the Whole
[771]
§ 973 Rule XVIII, clause 3
House on the state of the Union for consider-

ation of this matter?’’, naming it.
(b) After the House has adopted a resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules providing a
special order of business for the consideration of
a measure in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union, the Speaker may at
any time, when no question is pending before
the House, declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
that measure without intervening motion, unless
the special order of business provides otherwise.
Paragraph (a) was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress to codify the form of the motion to resolve into the Com-
mittee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A conforming change
to paragraph (a) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Paragraph (b) was added in the 98th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, paragraph (b) was found in former clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Measures requiring initial consideration in

the Committee of the Whole
3. All public bills, resolutions, or Senate
§ 973. Subjects amendments (as provided in clause
requiring
consideration in 3 of rule XXII) involving a tax or
Committee of the
Whole.
charge on the people, raising rev-
enue, directly or indirectly making
appropriations of money or property or requiring
such appropriations to be made, authorizing
payments out of appropriations already made,
releasing any liability to the United States for
money or property, or referring a claim to the
Court of Claims, shall be first considered in the
[772]
the Union. A bill, resolution, or Senate amend-

ment that fails to comply with this clause is sub-
ject to a point of order against its consideration.
The first form of this rule was adopted in 1794 and was perfected by
amendments in 1874 and 1896 (IV, 4792). Before the House recodified
3 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A technical correction to
this clause was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 2003, p. 7).
To require consideration in Committee of the Whole, a bill must show
on its face that it falls within the requirements of the rule (IV, 4811–
4817; VIII, 2391). If the expenditure is a mere matter of speculation (IV,
4818–4821; VIII, 2388), or if the bill might involve a charge but does not
necessarily do so (IV, 4809, 4810), the rule does not apply. However, if
a bill sets in motion a train of circumstances destined ultimately to involve
certain expenditures, it must be considered in Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4827; VIII, 2399), as must bills ultimately authorizing officials in cer-
tain contingencies to part with property belonging to the United States
(VIII, 2399). In passing upon the question as to whether a proposition
involves a charge upon the Treasury, the Speaker is confined to the provi-
sions of the text and may not take into consideration personal knowledge
not directly deducible therefrom (VIII, 2386, 2391). The requirements of
the rule apply to amendments as well as to bills (IV, 4793, 4794; VIII,
2331), and also to any portion of a bill requiring an appropriation, even
though it be merely incidental to the bill’s main purpose (IV, 4825).
The House may consider in Committee of the Whole subjects not specified
in the rule (IV, 4822); for example, major amendments to the Rules of
the House have been considered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to
special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, con-
sidered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to H. Res. 1395, Sept. 30,
1974, p. 32953; H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, consid-
ered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970,
p. 23901). Although conference reports were formerly considered in Com-
mittee of the Whole, they may not be sent there as a result of a point
of order that they contain matter ordinarily requiring consideration therein
(V, 6559–6561).
When a bill is granted a special order for its consideration in the House
by special rule (IV, 3216–3224) or by unanimous consent (IV, 4823; VIII,
2393), the effect is to discharge the Committee of the Whole. If the special
order so dictates, the bill is before the full House for consideration (IV,
3216; VII, 788). Otherwise, the bill is considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2393). In the modern practice of the House,
a special order reported from the Committee on Rules that makes in order
no amendments, or only one amendment, normally provides for consider-
[773]
ation of a measure on the Union Calendar in the House (see, e.g., Apr.
26, 2001, p. 6299).
When a bill once considered in Committee of the Whole is recommitted,
it is not, when again reported, necessarily subject to the point of order
that it must be considered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4828, 4829;
V, 5545, 5546, 5591).
Resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration appro-
priating from the contingent fund (now referred to as ‘‘applicable accounts
of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X’’) of the House are consid-
ered in the House (VIII, 2415, 2416). Authorizations of expenditures from
the contingent fund, under the later ruling (IV, 4862–4867), do not fall
within the specifications of the rule (IV, 4868). A bill providing for an
expenditure that is to be borne other than by the Government (IV, 4831;
VIII, 2400), or relating to money held in the Treasury in trust for a non-
governmental entity (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853; VIII, 2413), is not governed
by the rule.
Provisions placing liability jointly on the United States and the District
of Columbia (IV, 4833), granting an easement on public lands or streets
belonging to the United States (IV, 4840–4842), dedicating public land to
be forever used as a public park (IV, 4837, 4838), providing site for a statue
(VIII, 2405), confirming grants of public lands (IV, 4843) and creating new
offices (IV, 4824, 4846), have been held to require consideration in Com-
mittee of the Whole. Indian lands have not been considered property of
the Government within the meaning of the rule (IV, 4844, 4845; VIII, 2413).
Although a bill removing the rate of postage has been held to be within
the rule as affecting revenues (IV, 4861), a bill relating to taxes on bank
circulation have not been so considered (IV, 4854, 4855).
Order of business
4. (a) Subject to subparagraph (b) business on
§ 977. Order of the calendar of the Committee of
business in Committee
of the Whole. the Whole House on the state of the
Union may be taken up in regular
order, or in such order as the Committee may
determine, unless the measure to be considered
was determined by the House at the time of re-
solving into the Committee of the Whole.
(b) Motions to resolve into the Committee of
the Whole for consideration of bills and joint res-
olutions making general appropriations have
precedence under this clause.
[774]
The early practice left the order of taking up bills to be determined en-
tirely by the Committee, but in 1844 the House began by rule to regulate
the order, and in 1880 adopted the present rule (IV, 4729). When the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was transferred
from former clause 4 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). At
that time references in this provision to revenue bills and rivers and har-
bors bills were deleted to conform to changes made to the rules by the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470), which revoked the privilege to report such bills at any
time.
The power of the Committee to determine the order of considering bills
on its calendar is construed to authorize a motion to establish an order
(IV, 4730) or a motion to take up a specified bill out of its order (IV, 4731,
4732; VIII, 2333). Except in cases in which the rules make specific provi-
sions therefor, a motion is not in order in the House to fix the order in
which business on the calendars of the Committee of the Whole shall be
taken up (IV, 4733). The Committee of the Whole having voted to consider
a particular bill, and consideration having begun, a motion to reconsider
or change that vote is not in order (IV, 4765). When there is unfinished
business in Committee of the Whole, it is usually first in order (IV, 4735;
VIII, 2334).
Reading for amendment

5. (a) Before general debate commences on a
§ 978. General debate measure in the Committee of the
and amendment under
the five-minute rule in Whole House on the state of the
Committee of the
Whole.
Union, it shall be read in full.
When general debate is concluded
or closed by order of the House, the measure
under consideration shall be read for amend-
ment. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner who offers an amendment shall be al-
lowed five minutes to explain it, after which the
who shall first obtain the floor shall be allowed
five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
shall be no further debate thereon, but the same
privilege of debate shall be allowed in favor of
and against any amendment that may be offered
[775]
to an amendment. An amendment, or an amend-

ment to an amendment, may be withdrawn by
its proponent only by the unanimous consent of
the Committee of the Whole.
(b) When a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner offers an amendment in the Com-
Union, the Clerk shall promptly transmit five
copies of the amendment to the majority com-
mittee table and five copies to the minority com-
mittee table. The Clerk also shall deliver at
least one copy of the amendment to the majority
cloakroom and at least one copy to the minority
cloakroom.
A rule of 1789 provided that bills should be read and debated in Com-
mittee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule has
disappeared, the practice continues in Committee of the Whole but not
in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in Committee of the
Whole both as to the bill generally and also as to any amendment. However,
in 1841 the rule that no Member should speak more than an hour was
applied both to the Committee of the Whole and to the House. At the
same time another rule was adopted to prevent indefinite prolongation
of debate in Committee of the Whole by permitting the House by majority
vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the Whole from the consid-
eration of a bill after acting, without debate, on pending amendments and
any other amendments that might be offered. The effect of this was to
empower the House to close general debate at any time after it had actually
begun in the Committee and thereby require amendments to be voted on
without debate. In 1847 a rule provided that any Member proposing an
amendment should have five minutes in which to explain it, and in 1850
an amendment to the rule also permitted five minutes in opposition and
guarded against abuse by forbidding the withdrawal of an amendment
once offered (V, 5221). Paragraph (b), placing the responsibility for pro-
viding copies of amendments on the Clerk, was part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 124; 84 Stat. 1140) and was added to
the rule in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before
found in former clause 5(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The recodification also conformed paragraph (a) to the recodified clause
[776]
8 of rule XVI to reflect the modern practice of first and second readings
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
General debate must close before amendments, or motions for disposition
of the bill, may be offered (IV, 4744, 4778; V, 5221). General debate is
closed by the fact that no Member desires to participate further (IV, 4745).
If no member of a committee designated to control time is present at the
appropriate time during general debate in Committee of the Whole, the
Chair may presume the time to have been yielded back (June 11, 1984,
p. 15744). Time unused by a minority manager in general debate will be
considered as yielded back upon recognition of the majority manager to
close general debate (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2059). In the 104th Congress the
Speaker announced his intention to strictly enforce time limitations on
debate (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 457). The Chair manages the sequence in which
committees use their time for general debate under a special rule as a
matter of recognition and may recognize any member of the committee
who is filling the role of chair or ranking minority member under the gov-
erning special rule (Mar. 9, 2005, pp. 3928, 3932). For a further discussion
of management of time for general debate and debate on amendments in
the Committee of the Whole, see § 959, supra.
A simple motion to rise is in order during general debate if offered by
a Member managing time or a Member to whom a manager yields for
that purpose (June 10, 1999, p. 12522; Sept. 4, 2003, p. 21155, p. 21157,
p. 21158). However, a Member may not, in time yielded for general debate,
move that the Committee rise (May 25, 1967, p. 14121) or further yield
to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; May 17, 2000, p. 8200).
The motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole, successor
§ 979. Motion to close
in practice to the motion to discharge provided by the
general debate in rule of 1841, is made in the House pending the motion
Committee of the that the House resolve itself into Committee, and not
Whole. after the House has voted to go into Committee (V,
5208). Though the motion is not debatable, the previous
question is sometimes ordered on it to prevent amendment (V, 5203). If
the previous question is ordered, the 40 minutes of debate under clause
1(a) of rule XIX (formerly clause 2 of rule XXVII) is not allowed (VIII,
2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in Committee of
the Whole before the motion to limit debate it is in order in the House
(V, 5204–5206). The motion may not apply to a series of bills (V, 5209)
and must be offered to apply to the whole and not to a part of a bill (V,
5207). A proposition for a division of time may not be made as a part
of it (V, 5210, 5211). The motion may not be made in Committee of the
Whole (V, 5217; VIII, 2548); but, in the absence of an order by the House,
the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent determine general
debate (V, 5232; VIII, 2553). If the House has fixed the time, the Committee
may not, even by unanimous consent, extend it (V, 5212–5216; VIII, 2321,
2550; Mar. 27, 1984, p. 6599; June 17, 1999, pp. 13437, 13442).
[777]
The second reading was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and
§ 980. Reading and
has continued, although the rule was eliminated, un-
amendment under the doubtedly by inadvertence, in the codification of 1880
five-minute rule. (V, 5221). The recodification of the 106th Congress con-
formed paragraph (a) to reflect the modern practice of
first and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Revenue, general appropriation, lighthouse, and river and harbor bills
are generally read by paragraphs. Other bills are read by sections (IV,
4738, 4740). Absent an order of the House to the contrary, the matter
is in the discretion of the Chair (VIII, 2341, 2344, 2346), although the
Committee of the Whole has overruled a decision (VIII, 2347). A Senate
amendment, however, is read in its entirety, and not by paragraphs or
sections (V, 6194). An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
from the floor also must be read in its entirety and is then open to amend-
ment at any point. If a special order of business provides that an amend-
ment inserting a provision in a bill be considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole, the text thereby inserted in the bill
is not read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole (May 23, 2002,
pp. 8923, 8924).
A bill (or the remainder of a bill) may be considered as having been
read and open to amendment by unanimous consent but not by motion
(June 18, 1976, p. 19296). A unanimous-consent request in Committee of
the Whole that an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from
the floor be read for amendment by sections is not in order (Mar. 25, 1975,
p. 8490). The chair of the Committee of the Whole normally looks to the
manager of a general appropriation bill for any request to accelerate the
reading by paragraph, although the Chair may recognize a Member seeking
unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a portion of a bill not yet
read (July 26, 2001, p. 14733).
To a bill read by paragraph, a motion to strike an entire title, encom-
passing multiple paragraphs, is not in order (Aug. 5, 1998, p. 18928). If
a bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, adoption
of an amendment adding a new section at the end of the bill does not
preclude subsequent amendments to previous sections of the bill (Apr. 17,
1986, p. 7861). If a bill is considered by title, the adoption of an amendment
inserting a new title precludes subsequent amendment to the previous
title (Sept. 14, 2005, p. 20220; see also Deschler-Brown, ch. 27, § 10.13).
When a paragraph or section has been passed, it is not in order to return
thereto (IV, 4742, 4743) except by unanimous consent (IV, 4746, 4747;
Deschler, ch. 26, § 2.26) or when, the reading of the bill being concluded
and a motion to rise being decided in the negative, the Committee on mo-
tion votes to return (IV, 4748). By unanimous consent, the Committee of
the Whole permitted a Member to withdraw an amendment and to reserve
her right to reoffer it at a later time, even though that portion of the
bill would have been passed in the reading (June 28, 2001, p. 12262). The
[778]
Chair may direct a return to a section whereon, by error, no action was

had on a pending amendment (IV, 4750).
Points of order against a paragraph (or other portion of the bill then
open to amendment) should be made before the next paragraph (or portion
of the bill) is read or before an amendment is offered thereto (V, 6931;
VIII, 2351; June 16, 2004, p. 12565). The paragraph or section having
been read, and an amendment offered, the right to explain or oppose that
amendment has precedence of a motion to amend the amendment (IV,
4751).
The Member recognized during five-minute debate may not yield time
(V, 5035–5037; May 8, 1987, p. 11832; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34686) unless
remaining standing (June 10, 1998, p. 11976); and must confine remarks
to the subject (V, 5240–5256; VIII, 2591). If debate on an amendment is
limited or allocated by special order to a proponent and an opponent, the
Members controlling the debate may yield and reserve time, whereas de-
bate time on amendments under the five-minute rule cannot be reserved
(Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21425). A Member recognized under the five-minute rule
may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment (Dec. 12, 14,
1973, pp. 41171, 41716; Sept. 8, 1976, p. 29243; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7107)
or yield blocks of time (June 14, 2006, p. 11199). For a further discussion
of management of time for debate on amendments in the Committee of
the Whole, see § 959, supra.
Where the Chair recognizes the proponent of an amendment to propound
a unanimous-consent request to modify the text of the amendment before
commencing debate thereon, the Chair does not charge time consumed
under a reservation of objection against the proponent’s time for debate
on the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11931).
The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer amendments be-
tween majority and minority Members (giving priority to committee mem-
bers) (July 20, 2000, p. 15735). Recognition of Members to offer amend-
ments in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule is within
the discretion of the Chair and cannot be challenged on a point of order
(Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, § 9.6). The Chair does not anticipate the order
in which amendments may be offered nor declare in advance the order
in which Members proposing amendments will be recognized (Deschler-
Brown, ch. 29, § 21.3).
The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent, pro-
hibit the offering of an amendment otherwise in order under the five-
minute rule (July 31, 1984, p. 21701; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 11931). The fact
that copies of an amendment have not been made available as required
in this clause is not grounds for a point of order against the amendment
(June 21, 1974, p. 20609; Mar. 25, 1976, p. 7997). An amendment that
has been disposed of in the Committee of the Whole may not be withdrawn
(June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945).
[779]
The pro forma amendment to ‘‘strike the last word’’ has long been used
§ 981. Pro forma
for purposes of debate or explanation where an actual
amendments under amendment is not contemplated (V, 5778; VIII, 2591).
the five-minute rule. Unless a special rule precludes any amendment except
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, a pro
forma amendment may be voted on unless withdrawn (VIII, 2874) but
the Chair does not as a matter of course put the question on a pro forma
amendment. A Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma
amendment to debate a pending substantive amendment may not lengthen
this time by making another pro forma amendment (V, 5222; VIII, 2560),
may not offer another pro forma amendment after intervening debate on
a pending amendment or proposition, even on a subsequent day (July 14,
1998, p. 15298; May 23, 2002, p. 8913 (see May 22, 2002, p. 8707)), and
may not extend debate time by offering a substantive amendment while
other Members are seeking recognition (July 28, 1965, p. 18631). A Member
recognized to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule
may not during that time offer a substantive amendment but must be
separately recognized for that purpose (Nov. 19, 1987, p. 32880). A Member
may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently offer
a pro forma amendment and debate that (June 30, 1955, p. 9614); a Mem-
ber may offer a second degree amendment and then offer a pro forma
amendment to debate the underlying first-degree amendment (June 28,
1995, p. 17633); a Member who has debated a substantive amendment
may thereafter rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto (July
20, 1951, p. 8566); and a Member may offer a pro forma amendment each
to a pending amendment and a second-degree amendment thereto (June
12, 2007, p. 15525; July 31, 2007, pp. 21962, 21963), but not more than
one (July 31, 2007, p. 21967). A Member who has offered a substantive
amendment and then debated it for five minutes may not extend that time
by offering a pro forma amendment, because it is not in order for the offeror
of an amendment to amend his or her own amendment except by unani-
mous consent (Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27898). A pro forma amendment may be
offered after a substitute has been adopted and before the vote on the
amendment, as amended, by unanimous consent only, because the amend-
ment has been amended in its entirety and no further amendments, includ-
ing pro forma amendments, are in order (Oct. 18, 1983, p. 28185; June
28, 1995, p. 17633). A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may
not allocate or reserve time, but may in yielding indicate to the Chair
when the Member intends to reclaim time (May 19, 1987, p. 12811; July
13, 1994, p. 16438). The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer
pro forma amendments between majority and minority Members (giving
priority to committee members) rather than between sides of the question
(Mar. 21, 1994, p. 5730). A pro forma amendment may not be offered while
a point of order is pending (Feb. 16, 2011, p. l).
[780]
Quorum and voting

6. (a) A quorum of a Committee of the Whole
§ 982. Failure of a House on the state of the Union is
quorum in Committee
of the Whole. 100 Members. The first time that a
Committee of the Whole finds itself
without a quorum during a day, the Chair shall
invoke the procedure for a quorum call set forth
in clause 2 of rule XX, unless the Chair elects to
invoke an alternate procedure set forth in clause
3 or clause 4(a) of rule XX. If a quorum appears,
the Committee of the Whole shall continue its
business. If a quorum does not appear, the Com-
mittee of the Whole shall rise, and the Chair
shall report the names of absentees to the
House.
(b)(1) The Chair may refuse to entertain a
point of order that a quorum is not present dur-
ing general debate.
(2) After a quorum has once been established
on a day, the Chair may entertain a point of
order that a quorum is not present only when
of the Union is operating under the five-minute
rule and the Chair has put the pending propo-
sition to a vote.
(3) Upon sustaining a point of order that a
quorum is not present, the Chair may announce
that, following a regular quorum call under
paragraph (a), the minimum time for electronic
voting on the pending question shall be five min-
utes.
(c) When ordering a quorum call in the Com-
[781]
Union, the Chair may announce an intention to

declare that a quorum is constituted at any time
during the quorum call when the Chair deter-
mines that a quorum has appeared. If the Chair
interrupts the quorum call by declaring that a
quorum is constituted, proceedings under the
quorum call shall be considered as vacated, and
the Committee of the Whole shall continue its
sitting and resume its business.
(d) A quorum is not required in the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
adoption of a motion that the Committee rise.
It was the early practice for the Committee of the Whole to rise on finding
itself without a quorum (IV, 2977), and it was not until 1847 that a rule
(formerly clause 2(a) of rule XXIII) was adopted. The rule was amended
in 1880, again in 1890 (which included the concept that a quorum in the
Committee should be 100 rather than a quorum of the House (IV, 2966)),
and in 1971 (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). On October 13, 1972 (H. Res. 1123,
p. 36012) the rule was amended to reflect the installation of the electronic
voting system in the House Chamber. The clause was amended in the
93d Congress to give the Chair discretion to vacate proceedings under the
call when a quorum appears (H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195–99).
In the 95th Congress the clause was substantially changed to allow quorum
calls only under the five-minute rule where the Chair has put the question
on a pending proposition, after a quorum of the Committee of the Whole
has been once established on that day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–
70). The clause was amended again in the 96th Congress to permit the
Committee to continue its business following the appearance of a quorum
so that the Speaker need not take the chair to receive the Committee’s
report of absentees as in previous practice, and to enable the Chair to
reduce to five minutes the period for a recorded vote immediately following
a regular quorum call (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16). In the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) the clause was amended to allow
the Chair the discretion whether or not to entertain a point of order of
no quorum during general debate only. Gender-based references were
l). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provi-
sion was found in former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
The chair of the Committee of the Whole must entertain a point of order
of no quorum during consideration under the five-minute rule if a quorum
[782]
has not yet been established in the Committee on the bill then pending
(and the fact that a quorum of the Committee has previously been estab-
lished on another bill on that day is irrelevant during consideration (Sept.
19, 1984, p. 26082)). If a recorded vote on a prior amendment or motion
during consideration under the five-minute rule on that bill on that day
has established a quorum, a subsequent point of no quorum during debate
is precluded (June 3, 1992, p. 13336), although a subsequent call of the
Committee may be ordered by unanimous consent (May 10, 1984, p. 11869;
Dec. 17, 1985, p. 37469; June 25, 1986, p. 15551). A vote by division is
not such intervening business as would preclude a five-minute vote under
clause 6(b)(3) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609).
Clause 6(c) permits the chair of the Committee of the Whole to announce
in advance, at the time that the absence of a quorum is ascertained, an
intention to vacate proceedings when a quorum appears, and to convert
to a regular quorum call if a quorum does not appear at any time during
the call (May 13, 1974, p. 14148). The Chair need not convert to a regular
quorum call precisely at the expiration of 15 minutes if 100 Members have
not responded on a ‘‘notice’’ quorum call but may continue to exercise dis-
cretion to vacate proceedings at any time during the entire period per-
mitted for the conduct of the call by clause 2 of rule XX (July 17, 1974,
p. 23673).
Before the installation of the electronic system, a quorum in the Com-
mittee was established by a call of the roll. At one time the roll was called
but once (IV, 2967); but in the later practice it was called twice as on
other roll calls (VI, 668). Under the modern practice the Chair normally
directs that Members record their presence by electronic device. The Chair
may however, in the Chair’s discretion, order that Members respond by
the alternative procedures in clause 3 of rule XX (alphabetical call of the
roll) or clause 4(a) of rule XX (clerk tellers) (for the use of clerk tellers
for a ‘‘notice’’ quorum call in Committee of the Whole, see July 13, 1983,
p. 18858).
Where the Committee has risen to report the absence of a quorum, it
resumes its session by direction of the Speaker on the appearance of a
quorum (IV, 2968; VI, 674). The quorum that must appear to permit the
Committee to continue its business is a quorum of the Committee and
not of the House (IV, 2970, 2971). However, if such quorum fails to appear,
a quorum of the House is required for the Committee to resume its sitting
(VI, 674). It was formerly held that after the Committee has risen and
reported its roll call, a motion to adjourn was in order before direction
as to resumption of the session (IV, 2969); but under the later practice
the Committee immediately resumed its session without intervening mo-
tion or unanimous-consent requests (VI, 672, 673; VIII, 2377, 2379, 2436).
The failure of a quorum of the House to answer on this roll call does not
interfere with the authority of the Speaker to direct the Committee to
resume its session (IV, 2969). The Chair’s count of a quorum is not subject
to verification by tellers (VIII, 2369, 2436), may not be challenged by an
[783]
appeal (July 24, 1974, p. 25012), and may include those present and not
voting (VI, 641). On a division vote totaling less than 100, the Chair has
relied on an immediately prior count on a point of no quorum and on the
Chair’s observation of several Members present but not voting on the divi-
sion vote in finding the presence of a quorum of the Committee of the
Whole (June 29, 1988, p. 16504). No quorum being present when a vote
is taken in Committee of the Whole, and the Committee having risen before
a quorum appeared, such vote is invalid, and the question is put de novo
when the Committee resumes its business (VI, 676, 677). Although an
‘‘automatic’’ roll call (under clause 6(a) of rule XX) is not in order in Com-
mittee of the Whole, a point of order of no quorum may intervene between
the announcement of a division vote result and the transaction of further
business, and a demand for a recorded vote following the quorum call is
not thereby precluded (Oct. 9, 1975, p. 32598). Where a recorded vote is
refused but the Chair has not announced the result of a voice vote on
an amendment, and the demand for a division vote remains possible, the
question remains pending and the Chair is obligated to entertain a point
of order of no quorum under this provision (June 6, 1979, p. 13648).
Under clause 6(d), the presence of a quorum is not necessary for adoption
§ 983. Rising and
of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (IV,
reports of Committee 2975, 2976, 4914; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985,
of the Whole. p. 26096; May 21, 1992, p. 12394; July 21, 2004, p.
16849).
A simple motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged (VIII,
2369), takes precedence over a motion to amend (May 21, 1992, p. 12394;
June 12, 2007, p. 15522), and is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. 8203).
However, the motion cannot interrupt a Member who has the floor (VIII,
2370, 2371; June 12, 2007, p. 15527, pp. 15689, 15690) and may be ruled
out when dilatory (VIII, 2800). For a further discussion of the motion to
rise, see § 334, supra. For a point of order against the motion to rise and
report an appropriation bill to the House where the bill, as proposed to
be amended, exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and setting
forth procedures in the Committee of the Whole in the event that the point
of order is sustained, see § 1044b, infra.
A point of order of no quorum may not be entertained, on a day on
which a quorum has been established, during the period after the Com-
mittee of the Whole has risen after completing its consideration of a bill
or resolution and before the Chair has reported the bill or resolution back
to the House. The Chair having announced the absence of a quorum in
Committee of the Whole, a motion to rise is in order and, if a quorum
develops on the vote by which the motion is rejected, the roll is not called
and the Committee proceeds with its business (VIII, 2369). The passage
of a bill by the House is not invalidated by the fact that the Committee
of the Whole reported it on an erroneous supposition that a recorded vote
had disclosed a quorum (IV, 2972).
[784]
Under the modern practice, the Committee of the Whole may rise infor-
mally without motion to enable the Chair to lay an enrolled bill before
the House (Jan. 28, 1980, p. 888; Apr. 30, 1980, p. 9505).
(e) In the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union, the Chair shall order a
recorded vote on a request supported by at least
25 Members.
This provision was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7–16). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
clause 2(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A demand for
a recorded vote on an amendment is untimely where the Chair has recog-
nized for the next amendment (Dec. 15, 2005, p. 28739) or put the question
on the next amendment pending on the tree (Procedure, ch. 30, § 12.5),
or where considerable time has elapsed after the Chair’s announcement
of the voice vote (June 13, 2006, p. 11037). A motion to vacate a pending
vote by electronic device is not in order (May 8, 2008, p. l).
(f) In the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union, the Chair
§ 984. Reduced-time
votes in Committee of
the Whole. may reduce to not less than two
minutes the minimum time for elec-
tronic voting without any intervening business
or debate on any or all pending amendments
after a record vote has been taken on the first
pending amendment.
(g) The Chair may postpone a request for a re-
corded vote on any amendment. The Chair may
resume proceedings on a postponed request at
any time. The Chair may reduce to not less than
two minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening busi-
ness, provided that the minimum time for elec-
tronic voting on the first in any series of ques-
tions shall be 15 minutes.
[785]
Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39). Paragraph (g) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based references were eliminated from both in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Both were amended
in the 112th Congress to permit the Chair to reduce the minimum time
for voting to not less than two minutes (instead of to five minutes) (sec.
2(3)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). Such two-minute voting had pre-
viously been granted ad hoc by unanimous consent in the House (e.g., Mar.
16, 2006, p. 3767) Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Con-
gress, paragraph (f) was found in former clause 2(c) of rule XXIII (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A vote by division is not such intervening business
as would preclude a reduced-time vote under paragraph (f) (July 22, 1994,
p. 17609). Pursuant to paragraph (g), the Chair may resume proceedings
on a postponed question at any time, even while an amendment is pending
(May 24, 2011, p. l).
Before the adoption of paragraph (g), the chair of the Committee of the
Whole could not entertain a unanimous-consent request to reduce to fewer
than 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes (June 18, 1987,
p. 16764) or to postpone and cluster votes on amendments (July 13, 1995,
p. 18871; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26611; July 14, 1998, p. 15305). An amendment
pending as unfinished business where proceedings on a request for a re-
corded vote have been postponed can be modified by unanimous consent
on the initiative of its proponent (July 19, 2005, pp. 16487, 16488; see
also Mar. 30, 2000, p. 4037). Special rules of the House before adoption
of paragraph (g) commonly provided the chair of the Committee of the
Whole authority to postpone and cluster requests for recorded votes. Where
a special rule provided such authority: (1) use of that authority, and the
order of clustering, was entirely within the discretion of the Chair (e.g.,
Aug. 5, 1998, p. 18950); (2) a request for a recorded vote on an amendment
on which proceedings had been postponed could be withdrawn by unani-
mous consent before proceedings resumed on the request as unfinished
business, in which case the amendment stood disposed of by the voice vote
thereon (May 16, 2000, p. 7994); (3) it did not permit the Chair to postpone
a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (even by unanimous consent)
(June 8, 2000, p. 9954); (4) the Committee of the Whole by unanimous
consent could vacate postponed proceedings, thereby permitting the Chair
to put the question de novo (June 20, 2000, p. 11526); and (5) the Chair
could resume proceedings on unfinished business consisting of a ‘‘stack’’
of amendments even while an amendment was pending (July 10, 2000,
p. 13615).
Pursuant to this clause, where the Chair has announced that the Chair
will postpone a request for a recorded vote that was made pending a point
of order of no quorum, the point of order is considered as withdrawn be-
cause the question is no longer pending after the Chair’s announcement
(see § 1026, infra). The offering of a pro forma amendment to discuss the
legislative program, or an extended one-minute speech by a Member to
[786]
Rule XVIII, clause 7 § 985–§ 986
express gratitude to the Members on a personal matter, is considered inter-

vening business such as to preclude a reduced-time vote under this author-
ity except by unanimous consent (June 22, 2000, p. 12087; June 27, 2000,
p. 12586). A request for a record vote under this paragraph may be with-
drawn by unanimous consent before proceedings resume on the request
as unfinished business, in which case the amendment stands disposed of
by the voice vote thereon (e.g., Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20845; June 25, 2004,
pp. 14173 0975) unless the request proposes that the Chair put the question
de novo (Sept. 22, 2004, pp. 18957, 18958, 18962).
When the 103d Congress enabled voting by the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner in the Committee of the Whole (see
§ 985. Former
provision for de novo § 675, supra), it also added a new paragraph (h) to
vote where Delegates clause 6 (former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII) to provide
decisive. for immediate reconsideration in the House of questions
resolved in the Committee of the Whole by a margin
within which the votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were
decisive (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Such voting and reconsideration
thereof was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(c), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78, Jan. 24,
2007, p. 2140), and repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Under the former paragraph (h), whether the votes cast by the delegates
were decisive was determined by a ‘‘but for’’ test, the question being wheth-
er the result would be different if their votes were not counted (May 19,
1993, p. 10409; Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair’s count in such matter
was not subject to appeal (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair did not differen-
tiate between Members and Delegates and the Resident Commissioner in
announcing the result of a record vote in the Committee of the Whole
(Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3579). An amendment adopted by immediate proceedings
de novo in the House did not disturb the sequence of a ‘‘king-of-the-hill’’
procedure established by a special rule waiving all points of order against
subsequent amendments (Mar. 17, 1994, p. 5388). Former paragraph (h)
was applicable only to votes taken in the Committee of the Whole (Mar.
11, 2008, p. l).
Dispensing with the reading of an amend-

ment
7. It shall be in order in the Committee of the
§ 986. Motion to Whole House on the state of the
dispense with reading.
Union to move that the Committee
of the Whole dispense with the reading of an
amendment that has been printed in the bill or
resolution as reported by a committee, or an
[787]
amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resi-

dent Commissioner has caused to be printed in
the Congressional Record. Such a motion shall
be decided without debate.
This provision was added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981,
pp. 98–113) to permit a motion to dispense with the reading of certain
amendments in the Committee of the Whole. Before the House recodified
5(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Closing debate
8. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) at any time
§ 987. Closing the five- after the Committee of the Whole
minute debate in
Committee of the House on the state of the Union has
Whole.
begun five-minute debate on
amendments to any portion of a bill or resolu-
tion, it shall be in order to move that the Com-
mittee of the Whole close all debate on that por-
tion of the bill or resolution or on the pending
amendments only. Such a motion shall be de-
cided without debate. The adoption of such a
motion does not preclude further amendment, to
be decided without debate.
(b) If the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union closes debate on any por-
tion of a bill or resolution before there has been
debate on an amendment that a Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner has caused to be
printed in the Congressional Record at least one
day before its consideration, the Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner who caused the
amendment to be printed in the Record shall be
allowed five minutes to explain it, after which
[788]
sioner who shall first obtain the floor shall be al-

lowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it.
There shall be no further debate thereon.
(c) Material submitted for printing in the Con-
gressional Record under this clause shall indi-
cate the full text of the proposed amendment,
the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner proposing it, the number of the
bill or resolution to which it will be offered, and
the point in the bill or resolution or amendment
thereto where the amendment is intended to be
offered. The amendment shall appear in a por-
tion of the Record designated for that purpose.
Amendments to a specified measure submitted
for printing in that portion of the Record shall
be numbered in the order printed.
This clause (formerly clause 6 of rule XXIII) was adopted in 1860, with
amendments in 1880 and 1885 (V, 5221, 5224). Paragraph (b), permitting
10 minutes for debate on an amendment that has been printed in the
Record even after the Committee of the Whole closes debate, was inserted
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144) following the enact-
ment of an identical provision in section 119 of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). In the 105th Congress that provision
was amended to accommodate the printing of amendments to measures
not yet reported (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The third sentence, relat-
ing to the procedure for submitting and printing of amendments, was added
in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 1387, Nov. 25, 1974, p. 37270). The last sen-
tence, relating to the numbering of printed amendments, was added in
the 104th Congress (sec. 217, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the
in former clause 6 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical
correction was effected to paragraph (c) in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26).
The Speaker announced that amendments to be printed in the Record
pursuant to this clause must be deposited in a separate box at the Rostrum
or with the Official Reporters of Debates within 15 minutes following ad-
journment, and must bear the Member’s original signature (Nov. 25, 1974,
p. 37270). Although ordinarily the expiration of time for debate on a bill
and all amendments thereto precludes debate on amendments offered
[789]
thereafter (July 18, 1968, p. 22110), debate on an amendment printed in

the Record may nevertheless proceed for 10 minutes under this clause
(Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27715). Printing an amendment in the Record under this
clause permits debate notwithstanding a limitation of debate only if the
amendment has been properly offered, and does not permit the offering
of an amendment not otherwise in order under the rules (Apr. 23, 1975,
p. 11491); and the guaranteed five minutes may be claimed only if the
offeror of the amendment is the Member who caused it to be printed under
the rule (June 1, 1976, p. 16044; June 29, 1989, p. 13928; June 19, 1991,
p. 15473). The guaranteed time applies to an amendment offered as a sub-
stitute for another amendment, rather than as a primary amendment, if
offered in the precise form printed (June 26, 1979, p. 16682), but where
such a substitute amendment has not been printed in the Record it may
not be debated unless time is yielded within the original 10 minutes (Dec.
10, 1987, p. 34710). Where a special order requires amendments to be
printed in the Record to qualify during the consideration of a bill under
the five-minute rule, but makes no designation concerning offerors, any
printed amendment may be offered by any Member (Mar. 22, 1990, p.
5017); but only the Member causing the amendment to be printed is enti-
tled to the time for debate guaranteed by this clause.
The motion to close five-minute debate is not in order until such debate
has begun (V, 5225; VIII, 2567), which means after one five-minute speech
(V, 5226; VIII, 2573). The motion to strike the enacting clause under clause
9 (formerly clause 7) is preferential to the motion to close debate (June
28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p. 18872). Although any Member may
move, or request unanimous consent, to limit debate under the five-minute
rule, the manager of the bill has priority in recognition for such purpose
(June 19, 1984, p. 17055). The House, as well as the Committee of the
Whole, may close five-minute debate after it has begun (V, 5229, 5231),
but rarely exercises this right. The motion to close debate, although not
debatable (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11534; June 5, 1975, p. 17187, July 14, 1998,
p. 15304), may be amended (V, 5227; VIII, 2578). A time limitation imposed
by the Committee of the Whole under this clause may be rescinded or
modified only by unanimous consent (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28904). Although
the Committee of the Whole may limit debate on amendments, it may
not restrict the offering of amendments in contravention of a special order
adopted by the House (June 25, 1985, p. 17201). The Committee of the
Whole by unanimous consent may limit and allocate control of time for
debate on amendments not yet offered (May 6, 1998, p. 8348). The motion
may be ruled out when dilatory (V, 5734).
The closing of debate on the last section of a bill does not preclude debate
on a substitute for the whole text (V, 5228). Where there is a time limitation
on debate on a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
amendments thereto, but not on the underlying original text, debate on
perfecting amendments to the original text proceeds under the five-minute
rule absent another time limitation (Apr. 13, 1983, p. 8402). Where the
[790]
time for debate on a pending amendment in the form of a motion to strike

(and all amendments thereto) has been limited, a subsequently offered
perfecting amendment considered as preferential to (rather than as an
amendment to) the motion to strike remains separately debatable outside
the limitation (July 20, 1995, p. 19788). Where five-minute debate has
been limited to a certain number of minutes without reference to a time
certain, the time consumed by reading of amendments, quorum calls, points
of order and votes does not reduce the amount of time remaining for debate
(Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28459; Nov. 9, 1971, p. 40060). However, where debate
has been limited to a time certain, such activities as reading and voting
consume time otherwise available for debate (May 6, 1970, p. 14452; Oct.
7, 1976, p. 26305). Unlike time placed under a Member’s control, five-
minute debate (or time derived therefrom under a limitation) may not be
reserved or yielded in blocks except by unanimous consent (Mar. 2, 1976,
p. 4992; May 11, 1976, p. 13416; June 14, 1977, p. 18833). A motion to
limit debate on a pending amendment may neither allocate the time pro-
posed to remain nor vary the order of recognition to close debate, though
the Committee of the Whole may do either separately by unanimous con-
sent (July 12, 1988, p. 17767). The Committee of the Whole may by motion:
(1) limit debate on a pending committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute (considered as read) and on all amendments thereto to a time
certain; and then (2) separately limit debate on each perfecting amendment
as it is offered (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5794).
Under a limitation on debate the Chair may, in the Chair’s discretion,
choose among the following: (1) permit continued debate under the five-
minute rule; (2) divide the remaining time among those desiring to speak;
or (3) divide the remaining time between a proponent and an opponent
to be yielded by them to other Members (May 25, 1982, p. 11672; May
10, 2000, p. 7515). The Chair also may, in the Chair’s discretion, give pri-
ority in recognition under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer
amendments, over other Members standing at the time the limitation was
agreed to (May 26, 1977, pp. 16950–52). Where time for debate has been
limited on a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain several
hours away, the Chair may, in the Chair’s discretion, continue to proceed
under the five-minute rule until desiring to allocate remaining time on
possible amendments, and may then divide that time among proponents
of anticipated amendments and committee members opposing those
amendments (e.g., July 16, 1981, p. 16044; Feb. 28, 1995, pp. 6306–08).
The Chair has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the limit set
by unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 16, 1995, p.
8115).
As codified in clause 3(c) of rule XVII (and except as indicated in § 959,
supra) a manager of the bill controlling time in opposition to an amend-
ment, and not the proponent of the pending amendment, has the right
to close debate on the amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even where
[791]
the manager is the proponent of a pending amendment to the amendment

(Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).
Striking the enacting clause

9. A motion that the Committee of the Whole
§ 988. The motion to House on the state of the Union
strike the enacting
words of a bill. rise and report a bill or resolution
to the House with the recommenda-
tion that the enacting or resolving clause be
stricken shall have precedence of a motion to
amend, and, if carried in the House, shall con-
stitute a rejection of the bill or resolution. When-
ever a bill or resolution is reported from the
Committee of the Whole with such adverse rec-
ommendation and the recommendation is re-
jected by the House, the bill or resolution shall
stand recommitted to the Committee of the
Whole without further action by the House. Be-
fore the question of concurrence is submitted, it
shall be in order to move that the House refer
the bill or resolution to a committee, with or
without instructions. If a bill or resolution is so
referred, then when it is again reported to the
House it shall be referred to the Committee of
the Whole without debate.
The practice of rejecting a bill by striking the enacting clause dates from
a time as early as 1812, but the first rule on the subject was not adopted
until 1822. By amendments in 1860, 1870, and 1880 the rule has been
brought into its present form (V, 5326). The rule before 1880 applied in
the House as well as in Committee of the Whole. In the revision of 1880,
it was classified among the rules relating to the Committee of the Whole,
but there is nothing to indicate that this change was intended to limit
the scope of the motion. It was probably a recognition merely of the fact
that the motion was used most frequently in Committee of the Whole (V,
5326, 5332). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan.
[792]
6, 1999, p. 47). The motion must be in writing and in the proper form
(July 24, 1986, p. 17641; Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22071; Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178).
The motion may not be made until the first section of the bill has been
§ 989. Practice as to
read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619), and may be offered while
use of the motion to an amendment is pending (V, 5328–5331; VIII, 2622,
strike the enacting 2624, 2627). The motion takes precedence over the mo-
clause. tion to amend and therefore over the motion to rise
and report at the end of the reading of a general appro-
priation bill for amendment under clause 2(d) of rule XXI (July 24, 1986,
p. 17641). The motion also takes precedence over a motion to limit debate
on pending amendments (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p. 18874).
If a special order provides that a bill shall be open to amendment in Com-
mittee of the Whole, a motion to strike the enacting words is in order
(VII, 787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of amendment has been
passed the motion to strike the enacting words is not in order (IV, 4782;
VIII, 2368). Where a bill is being considered under a special order that
permits only committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a mo-
tion that the Committee rise and report with the recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken is not in order if no committee amendments
are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p. 12092).
The motion is debatable as to the merits of the bill, but may not go
beyond its provisions (V, 5336). The debate on the motion is governed by
the five-minute rule (V, 5333–5335; VIII, 2618, 2628–2631); only two five-
minute speeches are in order (V, 5335; VIII, 2629), and time may not be
reserved (May 22, 1991, p. 11830); thus where a Member recognized for
five minutes in opposition to the motion yields back the time, another Mem-
ber may not claim the unused portion thereof (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3241). Mem-
bers of the committee managing the bill have priority in recognition for
debate in opposition to the motion (May 5, 1988, p. 9955; June 26, 1991,
p. 16436). The Chair will not announce in advance the Member to be recog-
nized in opposition to the motion (July 17, 1996, p. 17543). The motion
is not debatable after the expiration of time for debate on the pending
bill and all amendments thereto (July 9, 1965, p. 16280; July 19, 1973,
p. 24961; June 19, 1975, p. 19785). However, it is debatable where the
limitation is only on an amendment in the nature of a substitute being
read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under a special
order and not on the bill itself (June 20, 1975, p. 19966). For more con-
cerning debate on the motion, see Deschler, ch. 19, § 13.
A second motion to strike the enacting clause is not entertained on the
same legislative day in the absence of any material modification of the
bill (VIII, 2636), but the motion may be repeated on a subsequent legisla-
tive day without change in the bill (May 6, 1950, p. 6571). The rejection
of a proposed amendment to the bill does not qualify as a modification
of the bill (June 21, 1962, p. 11369), nor does the adoption of an amendment
to a proposed amendment to the bill. However, adoption of an amendment
to an amendment in the nature of a substitute read as an original bill
[793]
pursuant to a special order does qualify as a modification of the bill (June

20, 1975, p. 19970). A motion that is withdrawn by unanimous consent
rather than voted on by the Committee does not preclude the offering of
another motion on the same day without a material modification of the
bill (May 9, 1996, p. 10758).
A point of order against the motion should be made before debate thereon
has begun (V, 6902; VIII, 3442; May 6, 1950, p. 6571), and when challenged
the Member offering the motion must qualify as being opposed to the bill
(Mar. 13, 1942, p. 2439; May 6, 1950, p. 6571; June 14, 1979, p. 14995;
Jan. 26, 1995, p. 2521). When a bill is reported from the Committee of
the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting words be stricken,
the motion to strike is debatable (V, 5337–5340), but a motion to lay on
the table is not in order (V, 5337). The previous question may be moved
on the motion to concur without applying to further action on the bill (V,
5342). When the House disagrees to the action of the Committee in striking
the enacting words and does not refer it under the provisions of the rule,
it goes back to the Committee of the Whole, where it becomes unfinished
business (V, 5326, 5345, 5346; VIII, 2633). Notwithstanding that consider-
ation of the pending bill was governed by a ‘‘modified-closed’’ rule permit-
ting only specified amendments, pending the concurrence of the House
with a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting
clause be stricken, the House could by instructions in a motion to refer
under this clause direct the Committee of the Whole to consider additional
germane amendments (Apr. 14, 1994, p. 7452). When the enacting words
of a bill are stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326). When the enacting
clause of a Senate measure is stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326); and
the Senate is so informed (IV, 3423; VIII, 2638; June 20, 1946, p. 7211;
Oct. 4, 1972, p. 33787).
When, on Calendar Wednesday, the House disagrees to the recommenda-
tion of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting words be stricken,
the House automatically resolves into Committee of the Whole for further
consideration (VII, 943).
Concurrent resolution on the budget

10. (a) At the conclusion of general debate in
§ 990. Reading the Committee of the Whole House
concurrent resolution
on budget for on the state of the Union on a con-
amendment.
current resolution on the budget
under section 305(a) of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974, the concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment.
[794]
(b) It shall not be in order in the House or in

of the Union to consider an amendment to a con-
current resolution on the budget, or an amend-
ment thereto, unless the concurrent resolution,
as amended by such amendment or amend-
ments—
(1) would be mathematically consistent ex-
cept as limited by paragraph (c); and
(2) would contain all the matter set forth in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 301(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2),
it shall not be in order in the House or in the
the Union to consider an amendment to a con-
current resolution on the budget, or an amend-
ment thereto, that proposes to change the
amount of the appropriate level of the public
debt set forth in the concurrent resolution, as re-
ported.
(2) Amendments to achieve mathematical con-
sistency under section 305(a)(5) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974, if offered by direction
of the Committee on the Budget, may propose to
adjust the amount of the appropriate level of the
public debt set forth in the concurrent resolu-
tion, as reported, to reflect changes made in
other figures contained in the concurrent resolu-
tion.
Paragraph (a) (first sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was added
on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53–70). Paragraph (b) (sec-
ond sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was adopted in the 96th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16). In the 96th Congress para-
[795]
§ 991–§ 993 Rule XVIII, clause 11
graph (b) was amended further and paragraph (c) (third sentence of former
clause 8 of rule XXIII) was added by Public Law 96–78 (93 Stat. 589)
and was originally intended to apply to concurrent resolutions on the budg-
et for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1980. However, in the
96th Congress the provisions of that public law amending the Rules of
the House were made applicable to the third concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1980 as well as the first concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 1981 (H. Res. 642, Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8789). Before
found in former clause 8 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A prior clause 11 (formerly clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) provided that an
§ 991. Former
amendment in the Committee of the Whole proposing
amendment to strike only to strike an unfunded mandate from a portion of
an unfunded mandate. the bill, could be precluded only by specific terms of
a special order of business. It was repealed in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). For the text of the
former rule and its history, see § 991 of the House Rules and Manual for
the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110–162).
Applicability of Rules of the House

11. The Rules of the House are the rules of the
§ 992. Application of Committee of the Whole House on
Rules of House to the
Committee of the the state of the Union so far as ap-
Whole.
plicable.
This clause was adopted in 1789 (IV, 4737). Before the House recodified
9 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was redesignated as
clause 11 when a prior clause 11 was repealed in the 112th Congress (sec.
2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The Chair may not entertain a unanimous-consent request in the Com-
§ 993. Modification of
mittee of the Whole if its effect is to materially modify
special orders. procedures required by a special rule or order adopted
by the House. For example, the following unanimous-
consent requests may not be entertained in the Committee of the Whole:
(1) to permit a perfecting amendment to be offered to the underlying bill
where a special rule permitted its consideration only as a perfecting amend-
ment to a committee amendment (Aug. 2, 1977, p. 26161); (2) to permit
a substitute to be read by section for amendment where the special rule
did not so provide (Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41153); (3) to extend the time limitation
for consideration of amendments beyond that set by a special order requir-
ing the Chair to put the question on the pending amendments at the expira-
tion of certain hours of consideration (Apr. 10, 1986, p. 7079; Oct. 30, 1991,
p. 29213; Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19218; Oct. 21, 1999, p. 26492); (4) to restrict
‘‘en blocking’’ authority granted in a special order (Sept. 11, 1986, p. 22871;
[796]
June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control (other than
among committees controlling time) (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984; Jan. 26, 2011,
p. l) or duration (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17143; Mar. 12, 1991, p. 5799; Mar.
17, 1993, p. 5385; June 17, 1999, pp. 13437, 13442; Feb. 9, 2005, pp. 1923,
1925 (Chair corrected himself)) of general debate specified by the House,
including a ‘‘wrap up’’ debate following the amendment process (Mar. 25,
2004, pp. 5318 0920) but the allotment of time to a chair or ranking minor-
ity member inurs to all members of the committee (Nov. 5, 2009, p. l);
(6) to preempt the Chair’s discretion (granted by a special order) to post-
pone and cluster votes or to schedule further consideration of a pending
measure to a subsequent day (June 4, 1992, p. 13625; July 13, 1995, p.
18872); (7) to postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (June
8, 2000, p. 9954); (8) to permit an amendment offered by another Member
to an amendment rendered unamendable by a special order or to permit
a subsequent amendment changing such unamendable amendment already
adopted (Nov. 18, 1987, p. 32643; July 26, 1989, p. 16411; July 24, 1996,
p. 18907); (9) to permit consideration of an amendment out of the order
specified in a special rule (May 25, 1988, p. 12275; Oct. 3, 1990, p. 27354;
Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29359; Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30472; June 10, 1998, p. 11914;
July 29, 1999, p. 18735; May 3, 2007, p. 11198); (10) to permit consideration
of an additional amendment (July 28, 1988, p. 19491; June 10, 1998, p.
11914; June 24, 2005, p. 14215; Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3702); (11) to authorize
a supplemental report from the Committee on Rules in lieu of the original
report referred to in the special order (Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988,
p. 22105); (12) to permit another to offer an amendment vested in a speci-
fied Member (May 1, 1990, p. 9030); (13) to permit a division of the question
on an amendment rendered indivisible by a special order (July 16, 1996,
p. 17318); (14) to preclude procedural votes (where the order of the House
refrained from precluding any form of motion to rise) (July 26, 2001, p.
14754); (15) to preclude further amendment except as specified (Apr. 3,
2003, p. 8490); (16) to permit the offering of a pro forma amendment to
an amendment when the special order governing consideration occupied
the field by permitting pro forma amendments to the bill only (July 7,
2004, pp. 14678, 14692).
Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained in Committee of the
Whole: (1) to permit the modification of a designated amendment made
in order by a special rule, once offered, if the request is propounded by
the proponent of the amendment (see, e.g., June 10, 1993, p. 12486; July
24, 1996, p. 18906; May 6, 1998, p. 8332; Mar. 29, 2000, p. 4017; Mar.
13, 2002, p. 3127), including as unfinished business where proceedings
on a request for a recorded vote have been postponed (Mar. 30, 2000, p.
4037); (2) to permit a page reference to be included in a designated amend-
ment made in order as printed where the printed amendment did not in-
clude that reference (Apr. 1, 1976, p. 9091); (3) to permit a supporter of
an amendment to claim debate time allocated by special order to an oppo-
nent, where no opponent seeks recognition (May 23, 1990, p. 11988); (4)
[797]
to shorten the time set by special order for debate on a particular amend-
ment (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742); (5) to lengthen
the time set by special order for debate on a particular amendment under
terms of control congruent with those set by the order of the House (May
11, 1988, p. 10495; May 21, 1991, p. 11646; Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8769; June
27, 1995, p. 17329; Nov. 2, 1995, p. 31376; Mar. 25, 2004, pp. 5318 0920)
but not for an unspecified amount, such as the ‘‘time that the Speaker
may claim to speak on her side of this issue’’ (May 27, 2010, p. l); (6)
to permit en bloc consideration of several amendments under a ‘‘modified-
closed’’ special order providing for the sequential consideration of des-
ignated separate amendments (Aug. 10, 1994, p. 20768); (7) to permit one
of two committees controlling time for general debate pursuant to a special
order to yield control of its time to the other (Aug. 18, 1994, p. 23118);
(8) to permit the proponent of an amendment to yield control of time in
support to another (Mar. 9, 2006, p. 3144); (9) to permit the offering of
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate under a ‘‘modified-closed’’
special order limiting both amendments and debate thereon (July 17, 1996,
p. 17563; July 24, 1996, p. 18896); (10) to reach ahead in the reading of
a general appropriation bill to consider one amendment without prejudice
to others earlier in the bill under a special order of the House contemplating
that each remaining amendment be offered only at the ‘‘appropriate point
in the reading of the bill’’ (Mar. 29, 2000, p. 3980); (11) to permit the
reading of an amendment that already was considered as read under the
special order of the House (June 13, 2000, p. 10546; July 10, 2002, p. 12441);
(12) to permit a request for a recorded vote even though untimely (June
24, 2005, p. 14182); Mar. 28, 2007, p. 8168); (13) to vacate a pending re-
corded vote in favor of taking the question de novo (although a motion
to that effect is not available) (May 8, 2008, p. l).
By unanimous consent the House may delegate to the Committee of the
Whole authority to entertain unanimous-consent requests to change proce-
dures contained in an adopted special order (Aug. 11, 1986, p. 20633).
The Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the Whole pursu-
ant to a special order of the House has the burden of proving that it meets
the description of the amendment made in order (July 17, 1996, p. 17553).
The Chair advised the Committee that an amendment made in order was
described by subject matter rather than by prescribed text and that the
pending amendment fit such description (July 20, 2000, p. 15751). For
a description of the authority under clause 6(g) for the chair of the Com-
mittee of the Whole to postpone and cluster requests for recorded votes
on amendments (which, before the adoption of that clause, was commonly
provided by special orders of the House), and the Chair’s interpretation
thereof, see § 984, supra.
[798]
Rule XIX, clause 1 § 994
RULE XIX
MOTIONS FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT STAGE
Previous question
1. (a) There shall be a motion for the previous
§ 994. The previous question, which, being ordered,
question.
shall have the effect of cutting off
all debate and bringing the House to a direct
vote on the immediate question or questions on
which it has been ordered. Whenever the pre-
vious question has been ordered on an otherwise
debatable question on which there has been no
debate, it shall be in order to debate that ques-
tion for 40 minutes, equally divided and con-
trolled by a proponent of the question and an op-
ponent. The previous question may be moved
and ordered on a single question, on a series of
questions allowable under the rules, or on an
amendment or amendments, or may embrace all
authorized motions or amendments and include
the bill or resolution to its passage, adoption, or
rejection.
The House adopted a rule for the previous question in 1789, but did
not turn it into an instrument for closing debate until 1811. The history
of the motion for the previous question is discussed in V, 5443, 5446; VIII,
2661. In 1880 the previous question rule was amended to apply to single
motions or a series of motions as well as to amendments, and the motion
to commit pending the motion for the previous question or after the pre-
vious question is ordered to passage was added (V, 5443). From 1880 to
1890, the previous question could only be ordered to the engrossment and
third reading, and then again ordered on passage, but in 1890 the rule
was changed to permit ordering the previous question to final passage
(V, 5443). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it
consolidated former clause 1 of rule XVII and a provision included in former
clause 2 of rule XXVII, permitting 40 minutes debate on which the previous
question has been ordered without there having been debate under this
clause. The 106th Congress also transferred the provision addressing the
[799]
§ 996–§ 997 Rule XIX, clause 1
motion to commit from clause 1 of rule XVII to clause 2 of this rule (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The previous question is the only motion used for closing debate in the
House itself (V, 5456; VIII, 2662). It is not in order in Committee of the
Whole (IV, 4716; Apr. 25, 1990, p. 8257) but is in order ‘‘in the House
as in Committee of the Whole’’ (VI, 639). The motion may not include a
provision that it shall take effect at a certain time (V, 5457).
The provisions of the rule define the application of the previous question
with considerable accuracy. It may not be moved on
the previous question. more than one bill, or on motions to agree to a con-
ference report and to dispose of differences not included
in the report, except by unanimous consent (V, 5461–5465). When ordered
on a motion to send to conference, it applies to that motion alone and
does not extend to a subsequent motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 2675).
It may apply to the main question and a pending motion to refer (V, 5466;
VI, 373; VIII, 2678), or to a pending resolution and a pending amendment
thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575; July 16, 1998, p. 15793). When a bill
is reported from the Committee of the Whole with the recommendation
that the enacting words be stricken, it may be applied to the motion to
concur without covering further action on the bill (V, 5342). During consid-
eration ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’ it may be demanded
while Members still desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926–4929; VI, 639),
but it may not be moved on a single section of a bill (IV, 4930). When
ordered on a resolution with a preamble there is doubt of its application
to the preamble, unless the motion so specifies (V, 5469, 5470). Thus, the
practice of the House is for special rules to order the previous question
on a resolution and on its preamble. It may be moved on a series of resolu-
tions, but this does not preclude a division of the resolutions on the vote
(V, 5468), although where two propositions on which the previous question
is moved are related, as in the case of a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules and a pending amendment thereto, a division is not
in order (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). The previous question is often ordered
on nondebatable propositions to prevent amendment (V, 5473, 5490), but
may not be moved on a motion that is both nondebatable and unamendable
(IV, 3077). It applies to questions of privilege as to other questions (II,
1256; V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672).
The Member in charge of the bill and having the floor may demand
§ 997. The right to
the previous question, although another Member may
move the previous propose a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684), which
question. must be put first (V, 5480; VIII, 2609, 2684). If the
Member in charge of the bill claims the floor in debate
another Member may not demand the previous question (II, 1458); but
having the floor, unless yielded to for debate only, any Member may make
the motion although the effect may be to deprive the Member in charge
of the bill of the floor (V, 5476; VIII, 2685). The Member who has called
up a measure in the House has priority of recognition to move the previous
[800]
Rule XIX, clause 1 § 998–§ 999
question thereon, even over the chair of the reporting committee (Oct. 1,
1986, p. 27468). If, after debate, the Member in charge of the bill does
not move the previous question, another Member may (V, 5475); but where
a Member intervenes on a pending proceeding to make a preferential mo-
tion, such as the motion to recede from a disagreement with the Senate,
that Member may not move the previous question on that motion as against
the rights of the Member in charge (II, 1459), and the Member in charge
is entitled to recognition to move the previous question even after surren-
dering the floor in debate (VIII, 2682, 3231). Where a Member controlling
the time on a bill or resolution in the House yields for the purpose of
amendment (or offers an amendment), another Member may move the pre-
vious question on the bill or resolution before the Member offering the
amendment is recognized to debate it (Deschler, ch. 23, § 18.3; July 24,
1979, p. 20385). Where under a rule of the House debate time on a motion
or proposition is equally divided and controlled by the majority and the
minority, or between those in favor and those opposed (see, e.g., clauses
2 and 6 of rule XV), the previous question may not be moved until the
other side has used or yielded back its time; and the Chair may vacate
the adoption of the previous question where it was improperly moved while
the other side was still seeking time (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22842). The previous
question may not be demanded on a proposition against which a point
of order is pending (VIII, 3433).
The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to the previous question
(V, 5410, 5411); and it may not be applied to the main
previous question to question after the previous question has been ordered
motions. (V, 5415–5422; VIII, 2655), or after the yeas and nays
have been ordered on the demand for the previous ques-
tion (V, 5408, 5409).
The motion to postpone may not be applied to the main question after
the previous question has been ordered (V, 5319–5321; VIII, 2617). The
previous question may be applied both to the main question and a pending
motion to refer (V, 5342; VI, 373). The motion to adjourn is not available
when the previous question has been ordered by special rule from the be-
ginning of debate to final passage without intervening motion (IV, 3211–
3213, June 14, 2001, p. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969).
This clause allows 40 minutes of debate when the previous question
§ 999. The 40 minutes
is ordered on an otherwise debatable proposition on
of debate on which there has been no debate (V, 6821; VIII, 2689;
undebated Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23602; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996) but
propositions. not before it is ordered (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820). How-
ever, any previous debate on the merits of the main
proposition precludes the 40 minutes (V, 5499–5502). The demand for 40
minutes of debate must come before the vote is taken on the main question
(V, 5496). It is not available: (1) when the question on which the previous
question is ordered is otherwise nondebatable, such as the motion to close
debate (VIII, 2555, 2690); (2) on an undebated amendment where the mo-
[801]
§ 1000–§ 1000a Rule XIX, clause 1
tion for the previous question covers both the amendment and the original
proposition, which has been debated (V, 5504) (although when the previous
question is ordered merely on an amendment that has not been debated,
the 40 minutes are allowed (V, 5503)); (3) on incidental motions (V, 5497–
5498); (4) on propositions previously debated in Committee of the Whole
(V, 5505); (5) on conference reports accompanying measures that were de-
bated before being sent to conference (V, 5506–5507); (6) on ancillary meas-
ures, such as a concurrent resolution to correct an enrolled bill (V, 5508).
Debate allowed under this provision is equally divided and controlled be-
tween the person demanding the time and a Member representing the
opposition (V, 5495; Sept. 13, 1965, pp. 23602–06; May 8, 1985, p. 11073).
Priority in recognition for time in opposition is accorded to a Member truly
opposed (VIII, 2689).
(b) Incidental questions of order arising during

the pendency of a motion for the
order pending the
motion for the previous question shall be decided,
whether on appeal or otherwise,
previous question.
without debate.
This provision was adopted in 1837 to prevent delay by debate on points
of order after the demand for the previous question (V, 5448). Before the
in former clause 3 of rule XVII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair
may recognize and respond to a parliamentary inquiry although the pre-
vious question may have been demanded (Mar. 27, 1926, p. 6469).
A question of privilege relating to the integrity of action of the House
itself has been distinguished from ordinary questions of order and has
been debated after the ordering of the previous question (III, 2532).
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), when the

§ 1000a. Postponement. previous question is operating to
adoption or passage of a measure
pursuant to a special order of business, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of
such measure in the House to such time as may
be designated by the Speaker.
This provision was adopted in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). This authority has been exercised with regard to a
motion to dispose of amendments between the Houses (e.g., Nov. 18, 2010,
p. l).
[802]
Recommit
2. (a) After the previous question has been or-
§ 1001. Recommit. dered on passage or adoption of a
measure, or pending a motion to
that end, it shall be in order to move that the
House recommit (or commit, as the case may be)
the measure, with or without instructions, to a
standing or select committee. For such a motion
to recommit, the Speaker shall give preference
in recognition to a Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner who is opposed to the meas-
ure.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c), a
motion that the House recommit a bill or joint
resolution on which the previous question has
been ordered to passage shall be debatable for
10 minutes equally divided between the pro-
ponent and an opponent.
(2) A motion to recommit a bill or joint resolu-
tion may include instructions only in the form of
a direction to report an amendment or amend-
ments back to the House forthwith.
(c) On demand of the floor manager for the
majority, it shall be in order to debate the mo-
tion for one hour equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent.
The motion to commit or recommit described in paragraph (a) was added
to the previous question rule (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) in 1880 (V,
5443). The portion of paragraph (a) that gives preference in recognition
to one opposed to the measure was added to former clause 4 of rule XVI
in the 61st Congress (Mar. 15, 1909, pp. 22–34). Paragraph (c) and an
earlier form of paragraph (b), relating to debate on the motion to recommit
with instructions, were added to former clause 4 of rule XVI by section
123 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and made a part of the
standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 21, 1971, p. 14). Para-
[803]
§ 1002 Rule XIX, clause 2
graph (b) was amended in the 111th Congress to allow for debate on the
straight motion, and subparagraph (2) was added to restrict the range
of permissible instructions to those ‘‘forthwith’’ (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, l). That provision was also amended in the 99th Congress to
provide that on the demand of the majority floor manager of a bill or joint
resolution, the 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with instruc-
tions, the previous question having been ordered, may be extended to one
hour, equally divided and controlled (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). When
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated the
last sentence of former clause 1 of rule XVII and provisions of former clause
4 of rule XVI, addressing the motion to recommit, under this clause (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For a general discussion of the motion to refer,
see § 916, supra.
The motion to commit under this rule applies to resolutions of the House
alone as well as to bills (V, 5572, 5573; VIII, 2742),
motion. and to a motion to amend the Journal (V, 5574). It does
not apply to a report from the Committee on Rules pro-
viding a special order of business (V, 5593–5601; VIII, 2270, 2750), or to
a pending amendment to a proposition in the House (V, 5573). A motion
to commit under this clause, with instructions to report forthwith with
an amendment, has been allowed after the previous question has been
ordered on a motion to dispose of Senate amendments before the stage
of disagreement (V, 5575; VIII, 2744, 2745). However, a motion to commit
under this clause does not apply to a motion disposing of Senate amend-
ments after the stage of disagreement where utilized to displace a pending
preferential motion (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887).
The motion to commit may be made pending the demand for the previous
question on passage (or adoption), whether a bill or resolution is under
consideration (V, 5576). However, when the demand covers all stages of
the bill to passage, the motion to commit is made only after the third
reading and is not in order pending the demand or before the third reading
(V, 5578–5581). When separate motions for the previous question are made,
respectively, on the third reading and on passage of a bill, the motion
to commit should be made only after the previous question is ordered on
passage (V, 5577). When the House refuses to order a bill to be engrossed
and read a third time, the motion to commit may not be made (V, 5602,
5603). When the previous question has been ordered on a simple resolution
(as distinguished from a joint resolution) and a pending amendment, the
motion to commit should be made after the vote on the amendment (V,
5585–5588). A motion to commit has been entertained after ordering of
the previous question even before the adoption of rules at the beginning
of a Congress (VIII, 2755; Jan. 5, 1981, p. 111).
When a special order declares that at a certain time the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on a bill to final passage, it has usually,
but not always, been held that a motion to commit is precluded (IV, 3207–
3209). Under clause 6(c) of rule XIII (formerly clause 4(b) of rule XI) the
[804]
Rule XIX, clause 2 § 1002a
Committee on Rules is prohibited from reporting a special order that pre-

cludes the motion to recommit as provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (VIII,
2260, 2262–2264; see also § 1001, supra). That provision was amended in
the 104th Congress to further prohibit the Committee on Rules from deny-
ing the Minority Leader or a designee the right to include proper amend-
atory instructions in a motion to recommit except with respect to a Senate
measure for which the text of a House-passed measure has been sub-
stituted (sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 460). Where a special order
providing for consideration of a matter in the House provides that the
previous question shall be considered as ordered thereon without inter-
vening motion and does not simply state that the previous question be
considered as ordered after debate, the previous question is considered
as ordered from the beginning of the debate, precluding the consideration
of any intervening motion (Mar. 12, 1980, pp. 5387–93; June 14, 2001,
p. 10725).
Where a bill is recommitted under this motion, the previous question
being pending but not ordered on final passage and, having been reported
again, is again amended and subjected to the previous question, another
motion to commit is in order after the engrossment and third reading (V,
5591).
Before the amendment of this clause in the 92d Congress, no debate
was permitted on a motion to recommit with instruc-
of motion. tions after the previous question was ordered (V, 5561,
5582–5584; VIII, 2741). The 10 minutes of debate pro-
vided under this clause does not apply to a motion to recommit a simple
or concurrent resolution or a conference report, because the clause limits
its applicability to bills and joint resolutions (Nov. 15, 1973, p. 37151; Mar.
29, 1976, p. 8444; Speaker O’Neill, June 19, 1986, p. 14698; June 30, 2010,
p. l). The manager of a bill or joint resolution, if opposed, and not the
proponent of a motion to recommit with instructions, has the right to close
controlled debate on a motion to recommit (Speaker Wright, Dec. 3, 1987,
p. 34066). The Member recognized for five minutes in favor of the motion
may not reserve time (Speaker Wright, June 29, 1988, p. 16510; June 29,
1989, p. 13938). Although time for debate on a motion to recommit is not
‘‘controlled,’’ and therefore Members may not reserve or yield blocks of
time (July 26, 2006, p. 16072), a Member under recognition may yield
to another while remaining standing (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2081).
Although the ordering of the previous question on a bill and all amend-
ments to final passage precludes debate (other than that specified in clause
2 of rule XIX) on a motion to recommit, it does not exclude amendments
to such motion (V, 5582; VIII, 2741); and, unless the previous question
is ordered on a motion to recommit with instructions, the motion is open
to amendment germane to the bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711). An amendment
to a motion to recommit is read in full (unless the reading is dispensed
with by unanimous consent) (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2084). An amendment to
a motion to recommit is not debatable (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2084). An amend-
[805]
§ 1002b Rule XIX, clause 2
ment striking all of the proposed instructions and substituting others can-
not be ruled out as interfering with the right of the minority to move recom-
mittal (VIII, 2698, 2759). The Member offering a motion to recommit a
bill with instructions may, at the conclusion of the 10 minutes of debate
thereon, yield to another Member to offer an amendment to the motion
if the previous question has not been ordered on the motion to recommit
(Speaker Albert, July 19, 1973, p. 24967).
The motion may be withdrawn in the House at any time before action
or decision thereon (VIII, 2764). The motion may not be laid on the table
after the previous question has been ordered (V, 5412–5414).
The simple motion to recommit and the motion to recommit with instruc-
§ 1002b. Instructions
tions are of equal privilege and have no relative prece-
with motion. dence (VIII, 2714, 2758, 2762; Nov. 25, 1970, p. 38997).
If the House adopts a motion to recommit with instruc-
tions that the committee report ‘‘forthwith,’’ the chair reports at once with-
out awaiting action by the committee (V, 5545–5547; VIII, 2730), the bill
is before the House for immediate consideration (V, 5550; VIII, 2735), the
amendment(s) must be adopted by the House (VIII, 2734), and an amend-
ment may be divided if otherwise divisible (June 29, 1993, p. 14618; May
28, 2010, p. l). When recommitted without such instructions, the measure
is before the committee anew (IV, 4557; V, 5558).
It is not in order to propose as instructions anything that might not
be proposed directly as an amendment such as: (1) an amendment that
is not germane (V, 5529–5541, 5834, 5889; VIII, 2705, 2707, 2708); (2)
to amend or eliminate an amendment adopted by the House (unless per-
mitted by special order) (V, 5531; VIII, 2712, 2714, 2715, 2720–2724); (3)
an amendment in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI (V, 5533–5540; Sept.
1, 1976, p. 28883; Sept. 19, 1983, p. 24646; Speaker Foley, Aug. 1, 1989,
p. 17159, and Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18546, each time sustained by tabling of
appeal; July 1, 1992, p. 17294; June 22, 1995, p. 16844). However, it has
been held in order to reoffer an amendment rejected by the House (VIII,
2728). A waiver of all points of order against consideration of a bill does
not inure to the motion to recommit (May 9, 2003, p. 11072).
Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a bill prohibited
the offering of amendments to a certain title of the bill (at any point during
consideration), it was held not in order to offer a motion to recommit with
instructions to amend the restricted title (Jan. 11, 1934, pp. 479–83). How-
ever, that precedent should be read in light of clause 6(c) of rule XIII,
which precludes the Committee on Rules from reporting a rule that would
prevent a motion to recommit from including amendatory instructions (see
§ 857, supra).
The motion to recommit may not be accompanied by preamble or other-
wise include argument, explanation, or other matter in the nature of debate
(V, 5589; VIII, 2749).
Only one motion to commit is in order (V, 5577, 5582, 5585; VIII, 2763).
If a motion to recommit is ruled out, a proper motion is admissible (VIII,
[806]
Rule XIX, clause 2 § 1002c
2736, 2760, 2761, 2763; June 22, 2005, p. 13540). Similarly, if the House
votes pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
not to consider a motion to recommit against which a Member has made
a point of order under section 425(a) of that Act, a proper motion to recom-
mit remains available (Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6932).
A motion to recommit with instructions was ruled out of order before
the entire motion had been read as a matter of form where a special order
of business precluded instructions (May 6, 2004, pp. 8590, 8591). A point
of order against a motion to recommit that initially is reserved pending
its reading may be insisted upon before commencement of debate thereon
(July 12, 2007, p. 18843) but not after (Mar. 5, 2008, p. l).
Before the adoption of paragraph (b)(2) in the 111th Congress, it was
permissible to direct a committee to study an issue (with or without amend-
atory instructions) and to report ‘‘promptly’’ its recommendations (Mar.
29, 1990, p. 1834) as long as they were germane and not argumentative
(Sept. 23, 1992, p. 27178). Such motions sent the bill or joint resolution
to committee, whose eventual report (if any) would not be immediately
before the House (Deschler, ch. 23, § 32.25; May 24, 2000, p. 9151; May
3, 2007, p. 11187). When a bill was so recommitted, the committee had
to confine itself to the instructions (IV, 4404; V, 5526).
Before former clause 4 of rule XVI was amended in 1909 to give priority
§ 1002c. Recognition to
in recognition for the motion to recommit to an oppo-
offer motion. nent of a bill or joint resolution pending final passage,
it was held that the opponents of a bill had no claim
to prior recognition (II, 1456). Although the provision as amended in 1909
applied only to bills and joint resolutions, the principle embodied in that
provision was applied also to motions to recommit simple or concurrent
resolutions or conference reports under former clause 1 of rule XVII (VIII,
2764; Nov. 28, 1979, p. 33914). When the House consolidated the last sen-
tence of former clause 1 of rule XVII and provisions of former clause 4
of rule XVI, addressing the motion to recommit, under this clause (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), the sentence conferring prior recognition to the
opposition was formally applied to all measures. However, precedents
under former clause 1 of rule XVII still dictate that recognition to offer
a motion to commit a resolution offered from the floor as a privileged matter
without having been referred to committee does not depend on opposition
to the resolution or on party affiliation (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976,
p. 3920).
When applying this rule the Speaker looks first to the Minority Leader
or a designee (as imputed by the form of former clause 4(b) of rule XI
adopted in the 104th Congress (current clause 6(c) of rule XIII)). If the
Minority Leader is not seeking recognition, the Speaker looks to minority
members of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their rank on
the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker Byrns,
July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the minority side (Speak-
er Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). Until a qualifying minority Member
[807]
§ 1002c Rule XIX, clause 2
has had the motion read by the Clerk, that Member is not entitled to
the floor so as to prevent a senior qualifying minority member from the
reporting committee from seeking recognition to offer the motion to recom-
mit (Speaker O’Neill, Apr. 24, 1979, p. 8360). If no Member of the minority
qualifies, a majority Member who is opposed to the bill may be recognized
(Speaker Garner, Apr. 1, 1932, p. 7327). The Chair does not assess the
degree of a Member’s opposition (Oct. 23, 1991, p. 28258) and accepts a
Member’s averment of opposition (Nov. 9, 2005, pp. 25640, 25643; Apr.
26, 2006, pp. 6196, 6197; May 4, 2006, pp. 7031, 7032). A Member who
is opposed to the bill ‘‘in its present form’’ (i.e., in the form before the
House when the motion is made) qualifies to offer the motion (Speaker
Martin, Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4547; Speaker McCormack, Mar. 12, 1964, p.
5147). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair requested all
Members to reflect on the importance of the Chair’s being able to rely
on the veracity of a Member’s assertion, when qualifying to offer a motion
to recommit, of opposition to the bill; and the Chair recited to the Members
the following apology by the ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations in 1979: ‘‘The honorable, if not technical, duty of a Mem-
ber offering a motion to recommit is to vote against the bill on final passage’’
(Speaker Hastert, June 23, 2005, p. 13845, quoting from Deschler-Brown,
ch. 29, § 23.49). The Chair also advised that it is not a violation of the
rules for a Member to vote for passage after asserting opposition to a meas-
ure in order to qualify to offer a motion to recommit, and it is not the
province of the Chair to instruct a Member how to vote (Apr. 26, 2006,
p. 6197).
The priority in recognition of a Member of the minority who is opposed
is not diminished by the fact that the minority party may have successfully
led the opposition to the previous question on the special order governing
consideration of the bill and offered a ‘‘modified-closed’’ rule permitting
only minority Members to offer perfecting amendments to the majority
text (June 26, 1981, p. 14740). However, although the motion to recommit
is the prerogative of the minority if opposed, a Member who in the Speak-
er’s determination led the opposition to the previous question on the motion
to recommit is entitled to offer an amendment to the motion to recommit,
regardless of party affiliation, such as the chair (June 26, 1981, pp. 14791–
93) or another majority-party member (Feb. 27, 2002, pp. 2080–85) of the
committee reporting the bill. The right to offer a motion to recommit a
House bill with a Senate amendment belongs to a Member who is opposed
to the whole bill in preference to a Member who is merely opposed to the
Senate amendment (VIII, 2772). Where the previous question has been
ordered on both the pending resolution and its preamble, a Member may
qualify to offer a motion to recommit on the basis of opposition to the
preamble, even though it is not otherwise subject to separate vote or
amendment (Feb. 12, 1998, p. 1333). A Member rising in opposition to
a motion to recommit must likewise qualify as opposed to the motion (Apr.
[808]
29, 1998, p. 7156) or obtain unanimous consent if not (e.g., Mar. 14, 2007,
p. 6386).
Reconsideration
3. When a motion has been carried or lost, it
§ 1003. The motion to shall be in order on the same or
reconsider.
succeeding day for a Member on the
prevailing side of the question to enter a motion
for the reconsideration thereof. The entry of
such a motion shall take precedence over all
other questions except the consideration of a
conference report or a motion to adjourn, and
may not be withdrawn after such succeeding day
without the consent of the House. Once entered,
a motion may be called up for consideration by
any Member. During the last six days of a ses-
sion of Congress, such a motion shall be dis-
posed of when entered.
The motion to reconsider used in the Continental Congress and in the
House of Representatives from its first organization, in 1789, was first
made the subject of a rule in 1802; and at various times this rule has
been perfected by amendments (V, 5605). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
1 of rule XVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The motion is not used in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716–4718; VIII,
2324, 2325), but is in order ‘‘in the House as in Committee of the Whole’’
(VIII, 2793). It is not in order in the House during the absence of a quorum
when the vote proposed to be reconsidered requires a quorum (V, 5606).
However, on votes incident to a call of the House the motion to reconsider
may be entertained and also laid on the table, although a quorum may
not be present (V, 5607, 5608).
The mover of a proposition is entitled to prior recognition to move to
reconsider (II, 1454). A Member may make the motion
§ 1004. Maker of the
motion to reconsider. at any time without thereby abandoning a prior motion
made by such Member and pending (V, 5610). A Dele-
gate or the Resident Commissioner may not make the motion in the House
(rule III; II, 1292; VI, 240). The provision of the rule that the motion may
be made by any Member of the majority is construed, in case of a tie vote,
to mean any Member of the prevailing side (V, 5615, 5616), and the same
construction applies in case of a two-thirds vote (II, 1656; V, 5617, 5618;
[809]
VIII, 2778–2780). Where the yeas and nays have not been ordered, any
Member, irrespective of whether voting with the majority or not, may make
the motion to reconsider (V, 5611–5613, 5689; VIII, 2775, 2785; Sept. 23,
1992, p. 27196); but a Member who was absent (V, 5619), or who was
paired in favor of the majority contention and did not vote, may not make
the motion (V, 5614; VIII, 2774). When proxy voting was permitted in
committee, it was generally held that a member who was not present at
a vote, but voted by proxy, did not qualify to make the motion to reconsider
thereon. Any Member may object to the Chair’s statement that by unani-
mous consent the motion to reconsider a vote is laid on the table, and
the objecting Member need not have voted on the prevailing side, but if
objection is made, the Chair’s statement is ineffective and only a Member
who voted on the prevailing side may offer the motion to reconsider the
vote (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22139). The Chair, having voted on the prevailing
side, may offer the motion to reconsider by stating the pendency of the
motion (Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22017).
The precedence given the motion by the rule permits it to be made even
after the previous question has been demanded (V,
the motion to 5656) or while it is operating (V, 5657–5662; VIII,
reconsider. 2784). The motion to reconsider the vote on the engross-
ment of a bill may be admitted after the previous ques-
tion has been moved on a motion to postpone (V, 5663), and a motion
to reconsider the vote on the third reading may be made and acted on
after a motion for the previous question on the passage has been made
(V, 5656). It also takes precedence of the motion to resolve into Committee
of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill (VIII, 2785), or even of a
demand that the House return to Committee after the appearance of a
quorum (IV, 3087). However, in a case wherein the House had passed a
bill and disposed of a motion to reconsider the vote on its passage, it was
held to be too late to reconsider the vote sustaining the decision of the
Chair that brought the bill before the House (V, 5652), and that a motion
to vacate those proceedings was not in order (Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 17,
1985, pp. 37472–74). After a conference has been agreed to and the man-
agers for the House appointed, it is too late to move to reconsider the
vote whereby the House acted on the amendments in disagreement (V,
5664). Although the motion has high privilege for entry, it may not be
considered while another question is before the House (V, 5673–5676; July
2, 1980, p. 18354), or while the House is dividing (VIII, 2791). A motion
to reconsider a secondary motion to postpone that has previously been
offered and rejected is highly privileged, even after the manager of the
main proposition has yielded time to another Member and before that
Member has begun his or her remarks (May 29, 1980, p. 12663). When
it relates to a bill belonging to a particular class of business, consideration
of the motion is in order only when that class of business is in order (V,
5677–5681; VIII, 2786). It may then be called up at any time; but is not
the regular order until called up (V, 5682; VIII, 2785, 2786). When once
[810]
entered it may remain pending indefinitely, even until a succeeding session

of the same Congress (V, 5684). The motion to reconsider is subject to
the question of consideration (VIII, 2437), and may be laid on the table
(VIII, 2652, 2659). The motion to reconsider an action taken on a bill on
Tuesday may be entered but may not be considered on Calendar Wednes-
day (VII, 905).
The motion to reconsider is in order in standing committees and may
be made on the same day on which the action is taken to which it is pro-
posed to be applied, or on the next day thereafter on which the committee
convenes with a quorum present at a properly scheduled meeting at which
business of that class is in order (VIII, 2213). In practice in the standing
committees, reconsideration of an amendment may require that the motion
to report first be reconsidered, and then the ordering of the previous ques-
tion on the measure, before a motion can be offered to reconsider the
amendment (cf. VIII, 2789).
A motion to reconsider may be entertained, although the bill or resolution
to which it applies may have gone to the other House
the motion to or the President (V, 5666–5668). However, unanimous
reconsider. consent is required to initiate reconsideration of a
measure passed by both Houses (IV, 3466–3469). The
Senate may not reconsider the confirmation of a nomination after a com-
mission has been issued by the President to a nominee and the latter has
taken the oath and entered upon the duties of the office. U.S. v. Smith,
286 U.S. 6 (1932). The fact that the House had informed the Senate that
it had agreed to a Senate amendment to a House bill was held not to
prevent a motion to reconsider the vote on agreeing (V, 5672). When a
motion is made to reconsider a vote on a bill that has gone to the Senate,
a motion to recall the bill is privileged (V, 5669–5671). The motion to recon-
sider may be applied once only to a vote ordering the previous question
(V, 5655; VIII, 2790), and may not be applied to a vote ordering the previous
question that has been partially executed (V, 5653, 5654); but a vote agree-
ing to an order of the House has been reconsidered, although the execution
of the order had begun (III, 2028; V, 5665). The vote ordering the previous
question on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules may
be reconsidered and is not dilatory under clause 6(b) of rule XIII (formerly
clause 4(b) of rule XI) (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575).
The motion may not be applied to negative votes on motions to adjourn
(V, 5620–5622), or for a recess (V, 5625), or to resolve into Committee
of the Whole (V, 5641). The motion to reconsider may be applied however
to an affirmative vote on the motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole while the Speaker is still in the chair (V, 5368; Apr. 20, 1978, p.
10990). A motion to reconsider the vote by which the House had decided
a question of parliamentary procedure was held not to be in order (VIII,
2776). Motions to reconsider negative votes on motions to fix the day to
which the House shall adjourn have been the subject of conflicting rulings
(V, 5623, 5624), but recent practice does not admit the motion (House Prac-
[811]
tice, ch. 43, § 12). It is in order to reconsider a vote postponing a bill to

a day certain (V, 5643; May 29, 1980, p. 12663). It is not in order to recon-
sider a negative decision of the question of consideration (V, 5626, 5627),
although it is in order to reconsider an affirmative vote on the question
of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27644). It is not in order to reconsider
a negative vote on the motion to suspend the rules (V, 5645, 5646; VIII,
2781; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25796), although it is in order to reconsider an
affirmative vote on that motion (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25795). It is not in
order to reconsider a vote on reconsideration of a bill returned with the
objections of the President (VIII, 2778). A vote whereby a second is ordered
may be reconsidered (V, 5642). The motion to reconsider a vote on a propo-
sition having been once agreed to, and said vote having again been taken,
a second motion to reconsider may not be made unless the nature of the
proposition has been changed by amendment (V, 5685–5688; VIII, 2788;
Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512). After disposition of a conference report and
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, it is in order on
the same day to move to reconsider the vote on a motion disposing of one
of the amendments; but laying on the table a motion to reconsider the
vote whereby the House has amended a Senate amendment does not pre-
clude the House from acting on a subsequent Senate amendment to that
House amendment, or considering any other proper motion to dispose of
an amendment that might remain in disagreement after further Senate
action (Oct. 5, 1983, p. 27323). For a discussion of the application of the
motion to reconsider in committees, see § 416, supra.
A bill is not considered passed or an amendment agreed to if a motion
§ 1007. Effect of the
to reconsider is pending, the effect of the motion being
motion to reconsider. to suspend the original proposition (V, 5704); and the
Speaker declines to sign an enrolled bill until a pending
motion to reconsider has been disposed of (V, 5705). However, when the
Congress expires leaving undisposed a motion to reconsider the vote where-
by a simple resolution of the House has been agreed to, it is probable
that the resolution would be operative; and where a bill has been enrolled,
signed by the Speaker, and approved by the President, it is undoubtedly
a law, even though a motion to reconsider may not have been disposed
of (V, 5704, note). A Member-elect may not take the oath until a motion
to reconsider the vote determining the title is disposed of (I, 335); but
when, in such a case, the motion is disposed of, the right to be sworn
is complete (I, 622). When the motion to reconsider is decided in the affirm-
ative the question immediately recurs on the question reconsidered (V,
5703). When a vote whereby an amendment has been agreed to is reconsid-
ered the amendment becomes simply a pending amendment (V, 5704).
When the vote ordering the previous question is reconsidered, it is in order
to withdraw the motion for the previous question, the ‘‘decision’’ having
been nullified (V, 5357). When the previous question has been ordered
on a series of motions and its force has not been exhausted, the reconsider-
ation of the vote on one of the motions does not throw it open to debate
[812]
(V, 5493). Under the earlier practice, when a vote taken under the oper-
ation of the previous question was reconsidered, the main question stood
divested of the previous question, and was debatable and amendable with-
out reconsideration separately of the motion for the previous question (V,
5491–5492, 5700). However, under the modern practice, where the House
adopts a motion to reconsider a vote on a question on which the previous
question has been ordered, the question to be reconsidered is neither debat-
able nor amendable (unless the vote on the previous question is separately
reconsidered) (July 2, 1980, p. 18355). It is in order to move to reconsider
the ordering of the yeas and nays on a question before the question has
been finally decided (V, 5689–5691, 6029; VIII, 2790; Sept. 24, 1997, p.
19946); but where the House had voted to reconsider the vote whereby
it had rejected a bill but had not separately reconsidered the ordering
of a record vote, the Speaker put the question de novo and entertained
a new demand for a record vote (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512).
The motion to reconsider is agreed to by majority vote, even when the
§ 1008. The vote on the
vote reconsidered requires two thirds for affirmative ac-
motion to reconsider. tion (II, 1656; V, 5617, 5618; VIII, 2795), or when only
one fifth is required for affirmative action, as in votes
ordering the yeas and nays (V, 5689–5692, 6029; VIII, 2790). However,
one motion to reconsider the yeas and nays having been acted on, another
motion to reconsider is not in order (V, 6037).
A vote on the motion to lay on the table may be reconsidered whether
the decision be in the affirmative (V, 5628, 5695, 6288;
motion to reconsider VIII, 2785) or in the negative (V, 5629). It is in order
to the motion to lay to reconsider the vote laying an appeal on the table
on the table. (V, 5630), although during proceedings under a call of
the House this motion was once ruled out (V, 5631).
The motion to reconsider may not be applied to the vote whereby the House
has laid another motion to reconsider on the table (V, 5632–5640; June
20, 1967, p. 16497); and a motion to reconsider may be laid on the table
only before the Chair has put the question on the motion to a vote (Sept.
20, 1979, p. 25512).
A motion to reconsider is debatable only if the proposition proposed to
§ 1010. Debate on the
be reconsidered was debatable (V, 5694–5699; VIII,
motion to reconsider. 2437, 2792; Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23608); so the motion
to reconsider a vote ordering the previous question is
not debatable (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575) and the application of the previous
question makes a motion to reconsider nondebatable (V, 5701; VIII, 2792;
Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512; July 2, 1980, p. 18355). Where a resolution pro-
viding for the order of business was agreed to without adoption of the
previous question, the Speaker advised that a motion to reconsider would
be debatable and that the Member moving the reconsideration would be
recognized to control the one hour of debate (Speaker McCormack, Sept.
13, 1965, p. 23608).
[813]
§ 1011–§ 1012 Rule XX, clause 1
4. A bill, petition, memorial, or resolution re-

ferred to a committee, or reported
motion to reconsider
therefrom for printing and recom-
to bills in committees.
mitment, may not be brought back

to the House on a motion to reconsider.
This clause (formerly clause 2 of rule XVIII) was first adopted in 1860,
and amended in 1872, to prevent a practice of using the privilege of the
motion to reconsider to secure consideration of bills otherwise not in order
(V, 5647). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XVIII, and in recodifica-
tion a provision requiring written reports was deleted as redundant of
the requirement contained in clause 2 of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). There is a question as to whether or not the rule applies to a case
wherein the House, after considering a bill, recommits it (V, 5648–5650).
After a committee has reported a bill it is too late to reconsider the vote
by which it was referred (V, 5651).
RULE XX
VOTING AND QUORUM CALLS
1. (a) The House shall divide after the Speaker

§ 1012. Voting viva has put a question to a vote by
voce, by division, by
electronic device. voice as provided in clause 6 of rule
I if the Speaker is in doubt or divi-
sion is demanded. Those in favor of the question
shall first rise from their seats to be counted,
and then those opposed.
(b) If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner requests a recorded vote, and that re-
quest is supported by at least one-fifth of a
quorum, the vote shall be taken by electronic de-
vice unless the Speaker invokes another proce-
dure for recording votes provided in this rule. A
recorded vote taken in the House under this
paragraph shall be considered a vote by the yeas
and nays.
[814]
Rule XX, clause 1 § 1012
This provision (formerly clause 5(a) of rule I) was adopted in 1789 and
its present form reflects the revisions and amendments of 1860, 1880 (II,
1311), 1972 (H. Res. 1123, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36005–08), and 1993 (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). From January 22, 1971 (when H. Res. 5 of
the 92d Congress was adopted incorporating provisions in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140), until October 13, 1972, this
rule provided a two-step procedure for ordering ‘‘tellers with clerks’’ before
installation of the electronic voting system, and for the first time permitted
Members to be recorded on votes in Committee of the Whole. The last
two sentences of this paragraph permitting a single-step ‘‘recorded vote’’
and voting by means of electronic device installed in the Chamber in 1972,
were contained in a House resolution adopted on October 13, 1972, and
were made effective by adoption of the rules of the 93d Congress (H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26). The general provision for demanding a vote by
tellers was repealed in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).
The provision providing that a recorded vote taken pursuant thereto shall
be considered a vote by the yeas and nays was added in the 105th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(a) of
rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The former right to demand tellers was not precluded by the fact that
the yeas and nays had been refused (V, 5998; VIII, 3103), by a point of
no quorum against a division vote on the question on which tellers were
requested (VIII, 3104), by a point of no quorum and a call of the House
following a division vote on the question on which tellers were demanded
(Sept. 25, 1969, p. 27041), or by the intervention of a quorum call following
the refusal of the Committee of the Whole to order a recorded vote (Feb.
27, 1974, p. 4447).
One of the suppositions on which parliamentary law is founded is that
the Speaker will not betray the duty to make an honest count on a division
(V, 6002) and the integrity of the Chair in counting a vote should not
be questioned in the House (VIII, 3115; July 11, 1985, p. 18550). A vote
by division takes no cognizance of Members present but not voting, and
consequently the number of votes counted by division has no tendency
to establish a lack of a quorum (June 29, 1988, p. 16504). Only one demand
for a vote by division on a pending question is in order (July 26, 1984,
p. 21259; June 29, 1994, p. 15206). However, where a division vote is de-
manded on a proposition in the House and the vote thereon is then post-
poned pursuant to clause 8, a division may again be demanded when the
question is put de novo on the proposition as unfinished business (since
a demand for a division may be made by any Member) (Mar. 18, 1980,
p. 5739).
In a full House (total membership of 435), a recorded vote is ordered
by one-fifth of a quorum (44), but in Committee of the Whole a recorded
vote is ordered by 25 (clause 6(e) of rule XVIII), rather than 20 in both
cases as in prior practice (V, 5986; Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41793). The Chair’s
[815]
§ 1013 Rule XX, clause 1
count of Members demanding a recorded vote is not appealable (June 24,

1976, p. 20390).
Only one request for a recorded vote on a pending question is in order
(Jan. 21, 1976, p. 508). The request may not be renewed where the absence
of a quorum is disclosed immediately following the refusal to order a re-
corded vote (June 6, 1979, p. 13648; Oct. 25, 1983, p. 29227). However,
although a request for a recorded vote once denied may not be renewed,
the request remains pending where the Chair interrupts the count of Mem-
bers standing in favor of the request in order to count for a quorum pursu-
ant to a point of order that a quorum is not present (Aug. 5, 1982, pp.
19658, 19659; July 22, 2003, p. 18993). A recorded vote may be had in
the House on a separate vote on an amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole on which a recorded vote had been refused (May 13, 1998,
p. 9134). A demand for the yeas and nays if refused by the House may
not be renewed, even when the question is put de novo as unfinished busi-
ness (Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, § 55.5).
A demand for a record vote cannot interrupt a vote by division that
is in progress (June 10, 1975, p. 18048). Where both a division vote and
a recorded vote are requested, the Chair will count for a recorded vote
(July 22, 2003, p. 18993). A parliamentary inquiry, or remarks uttered
without recognition, immediately following the Chair’s announcement of
a voice vote on an amendment is not such intervening business as to pre-
vent a demand for a recorded vote thereon where the Chair has not an-
nounced the final disposition of the amendment (May 23, 1984, p. 13928;
July 26, 1984, p. 21249; June 10, 1998, p. 11856). A demand for a recorded
vote may be untimely even if the body has not moved on to other business
(June 26, 2007, p. l).
The ordering of a recorded vote may be vacated by unanimous consent
(May 28, 2010, p. l).
Under the precedents recorded before the abolition of tellers, it was the
§ 1013. Former
duty of the Member to serve as teller when appointed
ordering of tellers and by the Chair (V, 5987); but when Members of one side
taking of the vote. had declined, the second teller was appointed from the
other side (V, 5988) or the position was left vacant (V,
5989). A Delegate could have been appointed teller (II, 1302). Where there
was doubt as to the count by tellers, the Chair could have ordered the
vote taken again (V, 5991; July 19, 1946, p. 9466), but this must have
been done before the result was announced (V, 5993–5995; VIII, 3098).
The Chair could have been counted without passing between the tellers
(V, 5996, 5997; VIII, 3100, 3101).
(c) In case of a tie vote, a question shall be

lost.
This provision was adopted in 1789. Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, it was found in former clause 6 of rule I (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[816]
2. (a) Unless the Speaker directs otherwise,

§ 1014. Use of the Clerk shall conduct a record
electronic equipment
in recording roll calls. vote or quorum call by electronic
device. In such a case the Clerk

shall enter on the Journal and publish in the
Congressional Record, in alphabetical order in
each category, the names of Members recorded
as voting in the affirmative, the names of Mem-
bers recorded as voting in the negative, and the
names of Members answering present as if they
had been called in the manner provided in
clause 3. Except as otherwise permitted under
clause 8 or 9 of this rule or under clause 6 of
rule XVIII, the minimum time for a record vote
or quorum call by electronic device shall be 15
minutes.
The permissive use of an electronic voting system was incorporated in
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 121; 84 Stat. 1140) and
was made a part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). The clause in its essential form was adopted the
next year (formerly clause 5(a) of rule XV) (H. Res. 1123, Oct. 13, 1972,
p. 36012). A technical correction to paragraph (a) was effected in the 108th
Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). The electronic system
was first utilized in the House on January 23, 1973 (p. 1793). Under para-
graph (a), a record vote is conducted by electronic device unless the Speaker
directs otherwise (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
A provision regarding holding a vote open for the sole purpose of revers-
ing its outcome was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 302, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). A select committee to investigate
certain voting irregularities recommended its repeal (H. Rept. 110–885),
and the 111th Congress did so (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
That provision did not establish a point of order (Apr. 15, 2008, p. l;
May 8, 2008, p. l) but a vote could have been subject to collateral challenge
as a question of the privileges of the House (Mar. 12, 2008, p. l; Apr.
15, 2008, p. l).
The Speaker inserted in the Record a detailed statement describing pro-
cedures to be followed during votes and quorum calls by electronic device
and by the backup procedures therefor (Jan. 15, 1973, pp. 1054–57). The
Speaker may direct that a call of the House be conducted by an alphabetical
[817]
call of the roll by the Clerk in lieu of utilizing the electronic voting device
(Mar. 7, 1973, p. 6699), and pursuant to this clause and clause 6 (formerly
clause 4 of rule XV) the Speaker may direct the Clerk to call the roll,
in lieu of taking the vote by electronic device, where a quorum fails to
vote on any question and objection is made for that reason (May 16, 1973,
p. 15850).
A request that the voting display be turned on during debate is not
in order (Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770).
At the end of a 15-minute vote, after the electronic voting stations are
closed but before the Speaker’s announcement of the result, a Member
may cast an initial vote or change a vote by ballot card in the well (Speaker
Albert, Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29850; Speaker Wright, Oct. 29, 1987, p. 30239).
In 1975 Speaker Albert announced that changes could no longer be made
at the electronic stations but would have to be made by ballot card in
the well (Speaker Albert, Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28903). In 1976 Speaker Albert
announced that changes could be made electronically during the first 10
minutes of a 15-minute voting period, but changes during the last 5 min-
utes would have to be made by ballot card in the well (Speaker Albert,
Mar. 22, 1976, p. 7394). In 1977 Speaker O’Neill announced that changes
could be made electronically at any time during a vote reduced to five
minutes under the rules (Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) and
the electronic voting system now is programmed to accommodate changes
at the stations throughout any electronic vote of a minimum duration of
less than 15 minutes. Once the Clerk has announced changes, the voting
stations close and further changes must be made in the well (Nov. 17,
2005, p. 26580).
The Speaker declines to entertain unanimous-consent requests to correct
the Journal and Record on votes taken by electronic device (Apr. 18, 1973,
p. 13081; May 10, 1973, p. 15282; June 17, 1986, p. 14038), unless the
request is to delete a vote that was not actually cast (June 26, 2000, p.
12371). A recorded vote or quorum call may not be reopened once the Chair
has announced the result (June 15, 2000, p. 11098). However, the Speaker
may announce a change in the result of a vote taken by electronic device
where required to correct an error in identifying a signature on a voting
card submitted in the well (Speaker O’Neill, June 11, 1981) or as a result
of an untabulated voting card (Sept. 25, 2008, p. l).
On a call of the House, or a vote, conducted by electronic device, Members
are permitted a minimum of 15 minutes to respond, but it is within the
discretion of the Chair, following the expiration of 15 minutes, to allow
additional time for Members to record their presence, or vote, before an-
nouncing the result (June 6, 1973, p. 18403; Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22016; Sept.
9, 2003, p. 21558; Mar. 30, 2004, pp. 5577, 5578; July 8, 2004, pp. 14781
0983; July 9, 2004, p. 14972). When an emergency recess under clause
12(b) of rule I occurred during an electronic vote, the Chair extended the
period of time in which to cast a vote by 15 additional minutes (May 11,
2005, p. 9164; June 29, 2005, p. 14835). A resolution alleging intentional
[818]
misuse of House practices and customs in holding a vote open for approxi-
mately three hours for the sole purpose of circumventing the will of the
House, and directing the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent
further abuse, constitutes a question of the privileges of the House (Dec.
8, 2003, pp. 32099, 32100; Dec. 8, 2005, pp. 27811, 27812). Similarly, resolu-
tions directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Eth-
ics) to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug.
3, 2007, p. 22746) or alleging irregularities in the conduct of a vote, direct-
ing House officers to preserve all records relating thereto, and establishing
a select committee of investigation thereof (Aug. 3, 2007, pp. 22768, 22769)
constitute questions of the privileges of the House.
Where the Chair attempted to prematurely close a vote by electronic
device while voting cards submitted in the well were still being tabulated,
he allowed such tabulation to conclude before announcing the outcome of
the vote (Aug. 2, 2007, p. 22545). The ‘‘scoreboard’’ components of the elec-
tronic voting system are for display only, such that when the clock-setting
on the board reads ‘‘final’’ the Chair may continue to allow Members in
the well to cast votes or enter changes (Sept. 18, 2007, p. 24524).
Because this clause is incorporated by reference into clause 6 of rule
XVIII (formerly clause 2 of rule XXIII), the chair of the Committee of the
Whole need not convert to a regular quorum call precisely at the expiration
of 15 minutes if 100 Members have not appeared on a notice quorum call,
but may continue to exercise discretion under that clause at any time dur-
ing the conduct of the call (July 17, 1974, p. 23673).
Because the Chair has the discretion to close the vote and to announce
the result at any time after 15 minutes have elapsed, those precedents
guaranteeing Members in the Chamber the right to have their votes re-
corded even if the Chair has announced the result (e.g., V, 6064, 6065;
VIII, 2143), which predate the use of an electronic voting system, do not
require the Chair to hold open indefinitely a vote taken by electronic device
(Mar. 14, 1978, p. 6838). In the 103d Congress the Speaker inserted in
the Record his announcement that, in order to expedite the conduct of
votes by electronic device, the Cloakrooms were directed not to forward
to the Chair individual requests to hold a vote open (Speaker Foley, Jan.
6, 1993, p. 106). Starting in the 104th Congress, the Speaker has an-
nounced that each occupant of the Chair would have the Speaker’s full
support in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest opportunity
and that Members should not rely on signals relayed from outside the
Chamber to assume that votes will be held open until they arrive (Speaker
Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 552; June 10, 1998, p. 11849; Speaker Hastert,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 249; Speaker Hastert, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 41; Speaker Hastert,
Jan. 7, 2003, p. 24; Jan. 8, 2003, p. 172; Speaker Hastert, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 70; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 5, 2007, p. 273; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l); however, the Chair will not
close a vote while a Member is in the well attempting to vote (Feb. 10,
1995, p. 4385; June 22, 1995, p. 16814).
[819]
§ 1014a Rule XX, clause 2
(b) When the electronic voting system is inop-

§ 1014a. Procedure erable or is not used, the Speaker
when electronic
voting system or Chair may direct the Clerk to
inoperable.
conduct a record vote or quorum
call as provided in clause 3 or 4.
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision
was added as a cross reference to the backup procedures found in clauses
3 and 4(a) and to clarify the Chair’s discretion to choose either backup
procedure (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was
l).
In the event of a malfunction in the electronic voting system during
a record vote, the Chair may vacate the results of the electronic vote and
direct that the record vote be conducted by call of the roll under clause
3 of rule XX (May 4, 1988, pp. 9846, 9847; Oct. 6, 1999, p. 24198) or may
direct a new electronic vote with a new 15-minute voting period (July 13,
2004, p. 15214). The determination that the electronic voting system is
functioning reliably is in the discretion of the Chair, who may base a judg-
ment on certification by the Clerk (Oct. 6, 1999, p. 24198). For example,
the Speaker continued to use the electronic system, even though the elec-
tronic display panels or certain voting stations were temporarily inoper-
ative, while urging Members to verify their votes (Sept. 19, 1985, p. 24245;
Feb. 4, 1994, p. 1640; Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1021; Apr. 9, 2002, p. 4054; Sept.
19, 2002, p. 17237; Sept. 4, 2003, pp. 21151, 21152). Similarly, where the
electronic voting system malfunctioned only temporarily, the Chair contin-
ued an electronic vote but advised Members to verify that they were re-
corded correctly (Mar. 25, 2004, p. 5262). On the other hand, the Chair
vacated the results of an electronic vote and directed that the record vote
be taken by call of the roll where there was a malfunction in the electronic
display panel and the Chair could not obtain from the Clerk verification
that the vote would be recorded with 100 percent accuracy (Oct. 6, 1999,
p. 24198). On one occasion, when the electronic voting system became inop-
erative during a vote, the Chair announced that (1) the vote would be
held open until all Members were recorded; (2) the Clerk would retrieve
the names of Members already recorded from the electronic display board;
(3) the Clerk would combine the names of Members voting electronically
and those who signed tally cards to form a valid vote; and (4) the vote
would remain open until Members had returned from a memorial service
at the National Cathedral (Sept. 14, 2001, p. 17103).
[820]
3. The Speaker may direct the Clerk to con-

§ 1015. Call of the roll duct a record vote or quorum call by
for the yea-and-nay
vote. call of the roll. In such a case the
Clerk shall call the names of Mem-
bers, alphabetically by surname. When two or
more have the same surname, the name of the
State (and, if necessary to distinguish among
Members from the same State, the given names
of the Members) shall be added. After the roll
has been called once, the Clerk shall call the
names of those not recorded, alphabetically by
surname. Members appearing after the second
call, but before the result is announced, may
vote or announce a pair.
The first form of this clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XV) was adopted
in 1789, and amendments were added in 1870, 1880, 1890 (V, 6046), 1969
(H. Res. 7, 91st Cong., Jan. 3, 1969, p. 35), and 1972 (H. Res. 1123, 92d
Cong., Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36005–012). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1 of rule
XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Although this clause permits the an-
nouncement of a ‘‘live’’ pair, the practice of general pairs found in former
clause 2 of rule VIII was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47; see § 1031, infra).
The names of Members who have not been sworn are not entered on
the roll from which the yeas and nays are called for entry on the Journal
(V, 6048; VI, 638; VIII, 3122).
Commencing in 1879 the Clerk, in calling the roll, called Members by
the surnames with the prefix ‘‘Mr.’’ instead of calling the full names (V,
6047), but since the 62d Congress the practice has been discontinued in
the interest of brevity (VIII, 3121). The Speaker’s name is not on the voting
roll and is not ordinarily called (V, 5970). When voting, the Speaker’s name
is called at the close of the roll (V, 5965). In case of a tie that is revealed
by a correction of the roll, the Speaker has voted after intervening business
or even on another day (V, 5969, 6061–6063; VIII, 3075). Where the Speak-
er through an error of the Clerk in reporting the yeas and nays announces
a result different from that actually had, the status of the question is gov-
erned by the vote as recorded and subsequent announcement by the Speak-
er of the changed result is authoritative, or the Speaker may entertain
a motion for correction of the Journal in accordance with the vote as finally
ascertained (VIII, 3162).
[821]
Under this clause, as under clause 6, the roll is called twice, and those
Members appearing after their names are called but before the announce-
ment of the result may vote or announce a ‘‘live’’ pair. Under the former
practice, before the amendment adopted on January 3, 1969, a Member
who had failed to respond on either the first or second call of the roll
could not be recorded before the announcement of the result (V, 6066–
6070; VIII, 3134–3150) unless the Member qualified by declaring that the
Member had been within the Hall, listening, when the name should have
been called and failed to hear it (V, 6071–6072; VIII, 3144–3150), and
then only on the theory that the name may have been inadvertently omitted
by the Clerk (VIII, 3137). Under the former practice in which the roll was
called by the Clerk, either before announcement of the result (V, 6064)
or after such announcement (VIII, 3125), the Speaker could order the vote
recapitulated (V, 6049, 6050; VIII, 3128). A Member may not change a
vote on recapitulation if the result has been announced (VIII, 3124), but
errors in the record of such votes may be corrected (VIII, 3125). A motion
that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged (VIII, 3126). The Speaker
has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote taken by electronic device
(Speaker Albert, July 30, 1975, p. 25841). The decision to conduct a record
vote by call of the roll is entirely within the discretion of the Speaker,
who may refuse to speculate whether he would exercise such discretion
on a future vote (Mar. 21, 2010, p. l).
The legislative call system was designed to alert Members to certain
§ 1016. Bell system.
occurrences on the floor of the House. The Speaker has
directed that the bells and lights comprising the system
be utilized as follows (Jan. 23, 1979, p. 701):
Tellers—one ring and one light on left. Because the demand for teller
votes was discontinued at the beginning of the 103d Congress, this signal
is no longer utilized.
Recorded vote, yeas and nays, or automatic record vote taken either by
electronic system or by use of tellers with ballot cards—two bells and two
lights on left indicate a vote by which Members are recorded by name.
Bells are repeated five minutes after the first ring. When by unanimous
consent waiving the five-minute minimum set by clause 9 (formerly clause
5(b)(3) of rule I) the House authorized the Speaker to put remaining post-
poned questions (Oct. 4, 1988, pp. 28126, 28148) or any question following
another vote by electronic device (e.g., May 23, 2006, p. 9274) to two-minute
electronic votes, two bells were rung.
Recorded vote, yeas and nays, or automatic record electronic vote to be
followed immediately by possible five-minute vote under clauses 8(c) or
9 of rule XX or clauses 6(f) or 6(g) of rule XVIII—two bells rung at beginning
of first vote, followed by five bells, indicate that Chair will order five-minute
votes if recorded vote, yeas and nays, or automatic vote is ordered imme-
diately thereafter. Two bells repeated five minutes after first ring. Five
bells on each subsequent electronic vote.
[822]
Recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole to be followed immediately

by possible two-minute vote under clauses 6(f) or 6(g) of rule XVIII—two
bells rung at beginning of first vote, followed by two bells, indicate that
Chair will order two-minute votes if recorded vote is ordered immediately
thereafter. Two bells repeated five minutes after first ring. Two bells on
each subsequent electronic vote.
Recorded vote, yeas and nays, or automatic roll call by call of the roll—
two bells, followed by a brief pause, then two bells indicate such a vote
taken by a call of the roll in the House. The bells are repeated when the
Clerk reaches the ‘‘R’s’’ in the first call of the roll.
Regular quorum call—three bells and three lights on left indicate a
quorum call either in the House or in Committee of the Whole by electronic
system or by clerks. The bells are repeated five minutes after the first
ring. Where quorum call is by call of the roll, three bells followed by a
brief pause, then three more bells, with the process repeated when the
Clerk reaches the ‘‘R’s’’ in the first call of the roll, are used.
Regular quorum call in Committee of the Whole, which may be followed
immediately by five-minute electronic recorded vote—three bells rung at
beginning of quorum call, followed by five bells, indicate that Chair will
order five-minute vote if recorded vote is ordered on pending question.
Three bells repeated five minutes after first ring. Five bells for recorded
vote on pending question if ordered.
Notice or short quorum call in Committee of the Whole—one long bell
followed by three regular bells, and three lights on left, indicate that the
Chair has exercised discretion under clause 6 of rule XVIII and will vacate
proceedings when a quorum of the Committee appears. Bells are repeated
every five minutes unless (a) the call is vacated by ringing of one long
bell and extinguishing of three lights, or (b) the call is converted into a
regular quorum call and three regular bells are rung.
Adjournment—four bells and four lights on left.
Any two-minute vote—two bells and two lights on left.
Any five-minute vote—five bells and five lights on left.
Recess of the House—six bells and six lights on left.
Civil Defense Warning—twelve bells, sounded at two-second intervals,
with six lights illuminated.
The light on the far right—seven—indicates that the House is in session.
Failure of the signal bells to announce a vote does not warrant repetition
of the roll call (VIII, 3153–3155, 3157) nor does such a failure permit a
Member to be recorded following the conclusion of the call (June 9, 1938,
p. 8662).
Before the result of a vote has been finally and conclusively pronounced
§ 1017. Changes and
by the Chair, but not thereafter, a Member may change
corrections of votes. a vote (V, 5931–5933, 6093, 6094; VIII, 3070, 3123,
3124, 3160), and a Member who has answered ‘‘present’’
may change it to ‘‘yea’’ or ‘‘nay’’ (V, 6060). However, a vote given by a
Member may not be withdrawn without leave of the House (V, 5930).
[823]
§ 1018–§ 1019 Rule XX, clause 4
When a vote actually cast fails to be recorded during a call of the roll
(V, 6061–6063) the Member may, before the approval of the Journal, de-
mand as a matter of right that correction be made (V, 5969; VIII, 3143).
However, statements of other Members as to alleged errors in a recorded
vote must be very definite and positive to justify the Speaker in ordering
a change of the roll (V, 6064, 6099). The Speaker declines to entertain
requests to correct the Journal and Record on votes taken by electronic
device, based upon the technical accuracy of the electronic system if prop-
erly utilized and upon the responsibility of each Member to correctly cast
and verify his or her vote (Apr. 18, 1973, p. 13081; May 10, 1973, p. 15282).
By unanimous consent the House may vacate proceedings on a recorded
vote conducted in the Committee of the Whole and require a vote de novo
where it is alleged that Members were improperly prevented from being
recorded (June 22, 1995, p. 16815).
Once begun the roll call may not be interrupted even by a motion to
adjourn (V, 6053; VIII, 3133), a parliamentary inquiry
§ 1018. Interruptions
of the roll call. (VIII, 3132) except in the discretion of the Chair and
if related to the call (Deschler-Brown, ch. 31, §§ 15.14,
15.15), a question of personal privilege (V, 6058, 6059; VI, 554, 564), the
arrival of the time fixed for another order of business (V, 6056) or for
a recess (V, 6054, 6055; VIII, 3133), or the presentation of a conference
report (V, 6443). However, it is interrupted for the reception of messages
and by the arrival of the hour fixed for adjournment sine die (V, 6715–
6718). A Member-elect may be sworn during a record vote (Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 46; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 242; Jan. 25, 2005, p. 749). Incidental questions
arising during the roll call, such as the refusal of a Member to vote (V,
5946–5948), are considered after the completion of the call and the an-
nouncement of the vote (V, 5947). The rules do not preclude a Member
from announcing after a recorded vote how the Member would have voted
if present (Speaker Rayburn, June 27, 1957, p. 10521; contra VIII, 3151),
but neither the rules nor practice permit a Member to announce after a
recorded vote how absent colleagues would have voted if present (VI, 200;
Apr. 3, 1933, p. 1139; Apr. 28, 1933, p. 2587; May 20, 1933, p. 3834; Mar.
16, 1934, pp. 4691, 4700; Apr. 14, 1937, pp. 3489, 3490; Apr. 15, 1937,
p. 3563).
4. (a) The Speaker may direct a record vote or

§ 1019. Quorum call by quorum call to be conducted by tell-
clerks.
ers. In such a case the tellers
named by the Speaker shall record the names of
the Members voting on each side of the question
or record their presence, as the case may be,
which the Clerk shall enter on the Journal and
publish in the Congressional Record. Absentees
[824]
shall be noted, but the doors may not be closed

except when ordered by the Speaker. The min-
imum time for a record vote or quorum call by
tellers shall be 15 minutes.
This paragraph was adopted as part of the general revision of this rule
(formerly rule XV) that was required by the implementation of the elec-
tronic voting system (H. Res. 1123, 92d Cong., Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36012).
was found in former clause 2(b) of rule XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). The Speaker has discretion to direct that the presence of Members
be recorded by this procedure in lieu of using the electronic system, or
the Chair may direct that a quorum call be taken by an alphabetical call
of the roll (Mar. 7, 1973, p. 6699). The chair of the Committee of the Whole
also may direct that a quorum call be conducted by depositing quorum
tally cards with clerk tellers, rather than by electronic device or a call
of the roll (July 13, 1983, p. 18858).
Exercising authority under this paragraph, the Speaker ordered the
doors to the Chamber closed and locked during a call of the House and
instructed the Doorkeeper to enforce the rule and let no Members leave
the Hall (Deschler, ch. 20, § 6.3). This clause does not give the Speaker
the authority to lock the doors during a recorded vote (June 11, 1997,
p. 10665). For a discussion of the count to determine a quorum, see House
Practice, ch. 43, § 5.
(b) On the demand of a Member, or at the sug-

gestion of the Speaker, the names
§ 1020. Count of those
not voting to make a
of Members sufficient to make a
quorum of record on a
roll call.
quorum in the Hall of the House
who do not vote shall be noted by the Clerk, en-
tered on the Journal, reported to the Speaker
with the names of the Members voting, and be
counted and announced in determining the pres-
ence of a quorum to do business.
This clause was adopted in 1890 (IV, 2905), but it merely formalized
a principle already established by a decision of the Chair (IV, 2895). It
was much in use in the first years after its adoption (III, 2620; IV, 2905–
2907); but with the decline of obstruction in the House and the adoption
of clause 6 (formerly clause 4 of rule XV) of this rule the necessity for
its use has disappeared to a large extent. Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
3 of rule XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Speaker may direct the
[825]
Clerk to note names of Members under this rule even on a vote for which
a quorum is not necessary (VIII, 3152). For a discussion of the count to
determine a quorum, see House Practice, ch. 43, § 5.
5. (a) In the absence of a quorum, a majority

comprising at least 15 Members,
§ 1021. The call of the
House.
which may include the Speaker,
may compel the attendance of absent Members.
(b) Subject to clause 7(b) a majority described
in paragraph (a) may order the Sergeant-at-
Arms to send officers appointed by the Sergeant-
at-Arms to arrest those Members for whom no
sufficient excuse is made and shall secure and
retain their attendance. The House shall deter-
mine on what condition they shall be discharged.
Unless the House otherwise directs, the Mem-
bers who voluntarily appear shall be admitted
immediately to the Hall of the House and shall
report their names to the Clerk to be entered on
the Journal as present.
The essential portions of this provision were adopted in 1789 and 1795,
with minor amendments in 1888, 1890 (IV, 2982), and 1971 (H. Res. 5,
92d Cong., Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Later in the 92d Congress several provi-
sions of this rule, including this clause, were amended to reflect the imple-
mentation of the electronic voting system (H. Res. 1123, Oct. 13, 1972,
pp. 36005–12). The provisions relating to the call of the roll by the Clerk
were deleted. Calls of the House are now taken by electronic device unless
the Speaker orders the use of the alternative procedure in clause 2(b).
Together with clause 7 (formerly clause 6(e)(2) of rule XV) this provision
was further amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp.
7–16) to conform to the requirement in that provision that further pro-
ceedings under the call shall be dispensed with unless the Speaker chooses
to recognize for a call of the House or a motion to compel attendance under
this paragraph. This clause must be read in light of clause 7 (formerly
clause 6(e) of rule XV), which prohibits the point of order that a quorum
is not present unless the Speaker has put a question to a vote. A technical
correction to paragraph (b) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44). A gender-based reference was eliminated
[826]
Rule XX, clause 5 § 1022–§ 1023
found in former clause 2(a) of rule XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Under this rule a call may not be ordered by less than 15, and without
§ 1022. Ordering and
that number present the motion for a call is not enter-
conducting the call. tained (IV, 2983). It must be ordered by majority vote,
and a minority of 15 or more favoring a call on such
vote is not sufficient (IV, 2984). A quorum not being present no motion
is in order but for a call of the House or to adjourn (IV, 2950, 2988; VI,
680), and at this stage the motion to adjourn has precedence over the
motion for a call of the House (VIII, 2642).
Although the following precedents predate the use of the electronic voting
and recording system, they are retained in the Manual because of their
general applicability with respect to calls of the House. A roll call under
paragraph (a) may not be interrupted by a motion to dispense with further
proceedings under the call (IV, 2992), and a recapitulation of the names
of those who appear after their names have been called may not be de-
manded (IV, 2933). However, during proceedings under the call the roll
may be ordered to be called again by those present (IV, 2991).
During a call less than a quorum may revoke leaves of absence (IV,
3003, 3004) and excuse a Member from attendance (IV, 3000, 3001), but
may not grant leaves of absence (IV, 3002). The roll is sometimes called
for excuses, and motions to excuse are in order during this call (IV, 2997),
but neither the motion to excuse nor an incidental appeal are debatable
(IV, 2999). After the roll has been called for excuses, and the House has
ordered the arrest of those who are unexcused, a motion to excuse an absen-
tee is in order when brought to the bar (IV, 3012).
An order of arrest for absent Members may be made after a single calling
§ 1023. Arrest of
of the roll (IV, 3015, 3016), and a warrant issued on
Members. direction of those present, such motion having prece-
dence of a motion to dispense with proceedings under
the call (IV, 3036). The Sergeant-at-Arms is required to arrest Members
wherever they may be found (IV, 3017), and the former leave for a com-
mittee to sit during sessions did not release its members from liability
to arrest (IV, 3020). A motion to require the Sergeant-at-Arms to report
progress in securing a quorum is in order during a call of the House (VI,
687). A Member who appears and answers is not subject to arrest (IV,
3019), and in a case in which a Member complained of wrongful arrest
the House ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate and amend the
return of his warrant (IV, 3021). A Member once arrested having escaped
it was held that he might not be brought back on the same warrant (IV,
3022). A privileged motion to compel the attendance of absent Members
is in order after the Chair has announced that a quorum has not responded
on a negative recorded vote on a motion to adjourn (Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386).
The former practice of presenting Members at the bar during a call of
the House (IV, 3030–3035) is obsolete, and Members now report to the
Clerk and are recorded without being formally excused unless brought in
[827]
under compulsion (VI, 684). Those present on a call may prescribe a fine
as a condition of discharge, and the House has by resolution revoked all
leaves of absence and directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to deduct from the
salary of Members compensation for days absent without leave (VI, 30,
198), but this penalty has been of rare occurrence (IV, 3013, 3014, 3025).
Having rejected a motion to adjourn, less than a quorum of the House
rejected a motion directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absent Mem-
bers, rejected a second motion to adjourn, and then adopted a motion au-
thorizing the Speaker to compel the attendance of absent Members (Nov.
2, 1987, p. 30387).
The motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call of the
House is not in order when a motion to arrest absent Members is pending
(IV, 3029, 3037); is not entertained until a quorum responds on the call,
but may be agreed to by less than a quorum thereafter (IV, 3038, 3040;
VI, 689; Sept. 11, 1968, p. 26453; Dec. 22, 1970, p. 43311); and is neither
debatable nor subject to amendment, thus the motion to lay it on the table
is not in order (Aug. 27, 1962, p. 17653; Dec. 18, 1970, p. 42504).
Form of resolution for the arrest of Members absent without leave (VI,
686).
During the call, which in later practice has been invoked only in the
§ 1024. Motions during
absence of a quorum, incidental motions may be agreed
a call. to by less than a quorum (IV, 2994, 3029; VI, 681), and
under clause 7 (formerly clause 6(a)(4) of rule XV) a
point of order of no quorum may not be made during the offering, consider-
ation, and disposition of any motion incidental to a call of the House. This
includes motions for the previous question (V, 5458), to reconsider and
to lay the motion to reconsider on the table (V, 5607, 5608), to adjourn,
which is in order even in the midst of the call of the roll for excuses (IV,
2998) or while the House is dividing on a motion for a call of the House
(VIII, 2644), and which takes precedence over a motion to dispense with
further proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643), and an appeal from a deci-
sion of the Chair (IV, 3010, 3037; VI, 681). The yeas and nays may also
be ordered (IV, 3010), but a question of privilege may not be raised unless
connected immediately with the proceedings (III, 2545). Motions not strict-
ly incidental to the call are not admitted, as for a recess (IV, 2995, 2996),
to excuse a Member from voting even when otherwise in order (IV, 3007),
to enforce the statute relating to deductions of pay of Members for absence
(IV, 3011; VI, 682), to construe a rule or make a new rule (IV, 3008), or
to order a change of a Journal record (IV, 3009). An appeal also may not
be entertained during a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6051). A motion
for a call of the House is not debatable (VI, 683, 688). The motion to compel
the attendance of absent Members, being neither debatable nor amendable,
is not subject to a motion to lay on the table (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2,
1987, p. 30389).
[828]
Rule XX, clause 5 § 1024a
(c)(1) If the House should be without a

§ 1024a. ‘‘Provisional quorum due to catastrophic cir-
quorum.’’
cumstances, then—
(A) until there appear in the House a suffi-
cient number of Representatives to constitute
a quorum among the whole number of the
House, a quorum in the House shall be deter-
mined based upon the provisional number of
the House; and
(B) the provisional number of the House, as
of the close of the call of the House described
in subparagraph (3)(C), shall be the number of
Representatives responding to that call of the
House.
(2) If a Representative counted in determining
the provisional number of the House thereafter
ceases to be a Representative, or if a Represent-
ative not counted in determining the provisional
number of the House thereafter appears in the
House, the provisional number of the House
shall be adjusted accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the
House shall be considered to be without a
quorum due to catastrophic circumstances if,
after a motion under paragraph (a) has been dis-
posed of and without intervening adjournment,
each of the following occurs in the stated se-
quence:
(A) A call of the House (or a series of calls
of the House) is closed after aggregating a pe-
riod in excess of 72 hours (excluding time the
House is in recess) without producing a
quorum.
[829]
§ 1024a Rule XX, clause 5
(B) The Speaker—

(i) with the Majority Leader and the Mi-
nority Leader, receives from the Sergeant-
at-Arms (or a designee) a catastrophic
quorum failure report, as described in sub-
paragraph (4);
(ii) consults with the Majority Leader and
the Minority Leader on the content of that
report; and
(iii) announces the content of that report
to the House.
(C) A further call of the House (or a series
of calls of the House) is closed after aggre-
gating a period in excess of 24 hours (exclud-
ing time the House is in recess) without pro-
ducing a quorum.
(4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a cat-
astrophic quorum failure report is a report ad-
vising that the inability of the House to estab-
lish a quorum is attributable to catastrophic cir-
cumstances involving natural disaster, attack,
contagion, or similar calamity rendering Rep-
resentatives incapable of attending the pro-
ceedings of the House.
(B) Such report shall specify the following:
(i) The number of vacancies in the House
and the names of former Representatives
whose seats are vacant.
(ii) The names of Representatives considered
incapacitated.
(iii) The names of Representatives not inca-
pacitated but otherwise incapable of attending
the proceedings of the House.
[830]
Rule XX, clause 5 § 1024a
(iv) The names of Representatives unac-

counted for.
(C) Such report shall be prepared on the basis
of the most authoritative information available
after consultation with the Attending Physician
to the Congress and the Clerk (or their respec-
tive designees) and pertinent public health and
law enforcement officials.
(D) Such report shall be updated every legisla-
tive day for the duration of any proceedings
under or in reliance on this paragraph. The
Speaker shall make such updates available to
the House.
(5) An announcement by the Speaker under
subparagraph (3)(B)(iii) shall not be subject to
appeal.
(6) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to a pro-
posal to create a vacancy in the representation
from any State in respect of a Representative
not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of at-
tending the proceedings of the House.
(7) For purposes of this paragraph:
(A) The term ‘‘provisional number of the
House’’ means the number of Representatives
upon which a quorum will be computed in the
House until Representatives sufficient in num-
ber to constitute a quorum among the whole
number of the House appear in the House.
(B) The term ‘‘whole number of the House’’
means the number of Representatives chosen,
sworn, and living whose membership in the
House has not been terminated by resignation
or by the action of the House.
[831]
§ 1024b–§ 1025 Rule XX, clause 6
This paragraph was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). It was amended in the 111th Congress to correct
a cross-reference and to eliminate a gender-based reference (secs. 2(l), 2(m),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). In extraordinary circumstances, section
8 of title 2, United States Code, prescribes special election rules to expedite
the filling of vacancies in representation of the House.
(d) Upon the death, resignation, expulsion,
§ 1024b. Accounting disqualification, removal, or swear-
for vacancies.
ing of a Member, the whole number
of the House shall be adjusted accordingly. The
Speaker shall announce the adjustment to the
House. Such an announcement shall not be sub-
ject to appeal. In the case of a death, the Speak-
er may lay before the House such documentation
from Federal, State, or local officials as the
Speaker deems pertinent.
This paragraph was added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). In the 109th Congress it was redesignated from para-
graph (c) to paragraph (d) and the Speaker’s responsibility to announce
an adjustment was extended to the swearing of a Member (sec. 2(h), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
6. (a) When a quorum fails to vote on a ques-
tion, a quorum is not present, and
§ 1025. The call of the
House in the new
form. objection is made for that cause
(unless the House shall adjourn)—
(1) there shall be a call of the House;
(2) the Sergeant-at-Arms shall proceed
forthwith to bring in absent Members; and
(3) the yeas and nays on the pending ques-
tion shall at the same time be considered as
ordered.
(b) The Clerk shall record Members by the
yeas and nays on the pending question, using
such procedure as the Speaker may invoke
under clause 2, 3, or 4. Each Member arrested
[832]
under this clause shall be brought by the Ser-

geant-at-Arms before the House, whereupon the
Member shall be noted as present, discharged
from arrest, and given an opportunity to vote;
and such vote shall be recorded. If those voting
on the question and those who are present and
decline to vote together make a majority of the
House, the Speaker shall declare that a quorum
is constituted, and the pending question shall be
decided as the requisite majority of those voting
shall have determined. Thereupon further pro-
ceedings under the call shall be considered as
dispensed with.
(c) At any time after Members have had the
requisite opportunity to respond by the yeas and
nays ordered under this clause, but before a re-
sult has been announced, a motion that the
House adjourn shall be in order if seconded by
a majority of those present, to be ascertained by
actual count by the Speaker. If the House ad-
journs on such a motion, all proceedings under
this clause shall be considered as vacated.
This clause (formerly clause 4 of rule XV) was adopted in 1896 (IV, 3041;
VI, 690); and amended in 1972 to make its provisions subject to clause
2 (formerly clause 5) of this rule (H. Res. 1123, 92d Cong., p. 36012). Para-
graph (c) was amended to clarify the privileged nature of the motion to
adjourn during the call in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 2003, p. 7) and the 111th Congress (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
p. l), when gender-based references were also eliminated (sec. 2(l), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XV
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Where objection is raised to a vote in the House on the ground that
a quorum is not present, and a quorum is in fact not present, the Speaker
may direct that the call of the House be taken by electronic device under
clause 2 (formerly clause 5), or may direct the Clerk to call the roll pursuant
to this clause (May 16, 1973, p. 15860).
[833]
It applies only to votes in which a quorum is required, and hence does

not apply to an affirmative vote on a motion to adjourn (July 25, 1949,
p. 10092; Nov. 4, 1983, p. 30946; Aug. 4, 2007, p. 22990), or motions inci-
dental to a call of the House that may be agreed to by less than a quorum
(IV, 2994, 3029; VI, 681), or to a call when there is no question pending
(IV, 2990). Although a quorum is not required to adjourn, a point of no
quorum on a negative vote on adjournment, if sustained, precipitates a
call of the House under the rule (VI, 700; June 4, 1951, pp. 6097, 6098;
June 15, 1951, p. 6621). Where less than a quorum rejects a motion to
adjourn, the House may not consider business but may dispose of motions
to compel the attendance of absent Members (Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30387).
When a Member objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum is not
present and makes the point of order under this clause, the Speaker may
count the House and determine the presence of a quorum and is not re-
quired to announce the actual count under the first sentence of this clause
(Sept. 30, 1981, p. 22456). Where the Speaker ascertains the presence of
a quorum by actual count following an objection to a vote under this clause,
or on a rejected demand for the yeas and nays and a division vote is then
taken on the pending question, the division vote is intervening business
(see VIII, 2804) permitting another objection to the lack of a quorum, and
the Speaker must again count the House (Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6792; Aug.
2, 1979, p. 22006). However, where the announced absence of a quorum
has resulted in a record vote under this clause (on the Speaker’s approval
of the Journal), the House may not, even by unanimous consent, vacate
the vote in order to conduct another voice vote in lieu of the record vote,
because no business, including a unanimous-consent agreement, is in order
in the announced absence of a quorum (July 13, 1983, p. 18844; Feb. 24,
1988, p. 2450). The House having authorized the Speaker to compel the
attendance of absent Members, the Speaker announced that the Sergeant-
at-Arms would proceed with necessary and efficacious steps, and that pend-
ing the establishment of a quorum no further business, including unani-
mous-consent requests for recess authority, could be entertained (Nov. 2,
1987, p. 30389).
Under this clause the roll is called twice, and those appearing after their
§ 1026. Conduct of the
names are called may vote (IV, 3052). A motion to ad-
call in the new form. journ may be made before the call begins (IV, 3050).
After the roll has been called, and while the proceedings
to obtain a quorum are going on, motions to excuse Members are in order
(IV, 3051).
The Sergeant-at-Arms is required to detain those who are present and
bring in absentees (IV, 3045–3048), and does this without the authority
of a resolution adopted by those present (IV, 3049). There is doubt as to
whether or not a warrant is necessary but it is customary for the Speaker
to issue one on the authority of the rule (IV, 3043; VI, 702). When arrested,
Members are arraigned at the bar, and either vote or are noted as present,
after which they are discharged (IV, 3044).
[834]
Rule XX, clause 7 § 1027–§ 1029
When a quorum fails to vote on a yea-and-nay vote on a motion that

requires a quorum to be present, and a quorum is not present, the Chair
takes notice of the fact, and unless the House adjourns, a call of the House
is ordered by the Chair under this rule, and the vote is taken on the ques-
tion de novo (IV, 3045, 3052; VI, 679). If the House does adjourn, the ques-
tion is put de novo the next meeting day (Oct. 10, 1940, p. 13535).
An automatic roll call results under this rule when the objection that
a quorum is not present and voting is made after a viva voce vote (VI,
697). An automatic roll call under this rule is not in order in Committee
of the Whole (Aug. 2, 1966, p. 17844). Pursuant to clause 8, if a vote is
objected to under this clause, further proceedings may be postponed, in
which case the question is put de novo when that vote recurs as unfinished
business. Furthermore, when such proceedings are postponed, the point
of order that a quorum is not present is considered as withdrawn because
no longer in order (a question not being put after the Speaker’s announce-
ment of postponement) (see clause 7, infra).
7. (a) The Speaker may not entertain a point

§ 1027. Quorum; when of order that a quorum is not
not required.
present unless a question has been
put to a vote.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) the Speaker may
§ 1028. Speaker’s recognize a Member, Delegate, or
discretion to
recognize for motion Resident Commissioner to move a
for call of House.
call of the House at any time. When
a quorum is established pursuant to a call of the
House, further proceedings under the call shall
be considered as dispensed with unless the
Speaker recognizes for a motion to compel at-
tendance of Members under clause 5(b).
(c) A call of the House shall not be in order
§ 1029. Relation of after the previous question is or-
previous question to
failure of a quorum. dered unless the Speaker deter-
mines by actual count that a
quorum is not present.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) were adopted in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 998,
Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195–99) and amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) and in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7–16) to dispense with further proceedings under any call of
[835]
the House when a quorum appears unless the Speaker chooses to recognize
for a motion. Paragraph (c) (formerly clause 2 of rule XVII) was adopted
in 1860 (V, 5447). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Con-
gress, paragraphs (a) and (b) were found in former clause 6 of rule XV
and paragraph (c) was found in former clause 2 of rule XVII. The 106th
Congress also transferred former clause 6(b) of rule XV to clause 6(d) of
rule XVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Under this clause the Speaker may not entertain a point of order of
no quorum when the Speaker has not put a question to a vote in the House
(Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 11, 1977, p. 891; Jan. 31, 1977, p. 2640; Sept. 30,
1997, p. 20837; July 21, 1998, p. 16342; June 14, 2001, p. 10725). The
Chair may not entertain a point of order of no quorum pending a request
that a committee be permitted to sit under the five-minute rule, because
the Chair has not put the question on a pending proposition to a vote
(June 18, 1980, p. 15316). However, under this clause the Speaker may
at any time choose to recognize a Member to move a call of the House
(Speaker O’Neill, Jan. 19, 1977, p. 1719; Jan. 31, 1977, p. 2640; Aug. 6,
1986, p. 19370), or may choose not to do so (Sept. 30, 1997, p. 20837),
or by unanimous consent may initiate a call of the House without motion
(Speaker Foley, Mar. 14, 1990, p. 4324) even, for example, before the call
of the Private Calendar, which is in order after approval of the Journal
and disposition of business on the Speaker’s table (July 8, 1987, p. 18972).
When one Member is already under recognition for debate, however, an-
other Member may be recognized to move a call of the House only if the
first Member yields for that purpose (July 23, 1998, p. 16989). For prece-
dents addressing timeliness in raising a point of order of no quorum, see
Deschler, ch. 20, § 13.
The Speaker’s refusal to entertain a point of order of no quorum when
a pending question has not been put to a vote is not subject to an appeal,
because the clause contains an absolute and unambiguous prohibition
against entertaining such a point of order (Sept. 16, 1977, p. 29562). During
debate on a measure in the House the Speaker will not respond to an
inquiry as to the number of Members present in the Chamber, because
a point of no quorum is not admissible unless the Speaker has put the
pending question to a vote (Oct. 28, 1987, p. 29682).
In adopting this rule, the House has manifested a determination that
the mere conduct of debate in the House, where the Chair has not put
the pending motion or proposition to a vote, is not such business as requires
a quorum under the Constitution (art. I, sec. 5, cl. 1), and neither a point
of order of no quorum during debate only nor a point of order against
the enforcement of this clause lies independently under the Constitution
(Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28114; Sept. 12, 1977, p. 28800; Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3060).
[836]
Postponement of proceedings
8. (a)(1) When a recorded vote is ordered, or
§ 1030. Postponing the yeas and nays are ordered, or a
record votes on
passage. vote is objected to under clause 6—
(A) on any of the questions specified in sub-
paragraph (2), the Speaker may postpone fur-
ther proceedings to a designated place in the
legislative schedule within two additional leg-
islative days; and
(B) on the question of agreeing to the Speak-
er’s approval of the Journal, the Speaker may
postpone further proceedings to a designated
place in the legislative schedule on that legis-
lative day.
(2) The questions described in subparagraph
(1) are as follows:
(A) The question of passing a bill or joint
resolution.
(B) The question of adopting a resolution or
concurrent resolution.
(C) The question of agreeing to a motion to
instruct managers on the part of the House
(except that proceedings may not resume on
such a motion under clause 7(c) of rule XXII
if the managers have filed a report in the
House).
(D) The question of agreeing to a conference
report.
(E) The question of ordering the previous
question on a question described in subdivi-
sion (A), (B), (C), or (D).
(F) The question of agreeing to a motion to
suspend the rules.
[837]
(G) The question of agreeing to a motion to

reconsider or the question of agreeing to a mo-
tion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider.
(H) The question of agreeing to an amend-
ment reported from the Committee of the
Whole.
(b) At the time designated by the Speaker for
further proceedings on questions postponed
under paragraph (a), the Speaker shall resume
proceedings on each postponed question.
(c) The Speaker may reduce to five minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting on a
question postponed under this clause, or on a
question incidental thereto, that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, so
long as the minimum time for electronic voting
on the first in any series of questions is 15 min-
utes.
(d) If the House adjourns on a legislative day
designated for further proceedings on questions
postponed under this clause without disposing of
such questions, then on the next legislative day
the unfinished business is the disposition of such
questions.
This provision (formerly clause 5(b) of rule I) was added in the 96th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 7), and paragraph (a) was amended
in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98–113) to consolidate
most authority for the postponing of further proceedings on certain ques-
tions into this paragraph. This consolidation was accomplished with the
addition of the authority to postpone further proceedings on reports from
the Committee on Rules and motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker
was granted additional authority to postpone further proceedings as fol-
lows: (1) the Speaker’s approval of the Journal until later that legislative
day in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34); (2) motions to
instruct conferees under clause 7(c) of rule XXII in the 101st Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72); (3) the original motion to instruct conferees
[838]
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); (4) ordering the
previous question on another question that is, itself, susceptible of post-
ponement (and the list was reordered) in the 104th Congress (sec. 223(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469); (5) certain questions during consideration
of bills called from the Corrections Calendar in the 105th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), but that provision was stricken in the 109th
Congress when the Corrections Calendar was repealed (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43); (6) questions incidental to a postponed question
(and to permit the first postponed vote in a series to be a five-minute
vote if it immediately follows a 15-minute vote) in the 106th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); (7) the question of agreeing to the motion
to reconsider, the question of agreeing to the motion to lay on the table
a motion to reconsider, and the question of agreeing to an amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole in the 109th Congress (sec.
2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(b) of
rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Technical corrections to paragraphs
(a), (b), and (d) of clause 8 were effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). The House by unanimous consent has author-
ized the Speaker to postpone further proceedings on a specified class of
record votes to a date certain beyond the two legislative days permitted
under this clause (e.g., Sept. 17, 2003, p. 22272).
In the 108th Congress clause 9 was expanded to include the authority
described in clause 8(c) (sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Clause
9 permits the Speaker to reduce to five minutes a record vote on any ques-
tion arising without intervening business after an electronic vote on an-
other question if notice of possible five-minute voting was properly issued.
The Speaker first exercised the authority to postpone a record vote on
the approval of the Journal on November 10, 1983 (p. 32097). That author-
ity includes the power to postpone a division vote on the approval of the
Journal that is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX (formerly clause 4
of rule XV) (Sept. 21, 1993, p. 21820). On questions not enumerated in
this paragraph, such as the initial motion to instruct conferees before the
106th Congress, unanimous consent is required to permit the Speaker to
postpone such record votes (Oct. 6, 1986, p. 28704).
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6(e) of rule XV), prohib-
iting a point of order of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the pending
proposition to a vote, the Speaker announces, after postponing a vote on
a motion to suspend the rules where objection has been made to the vote
on the grounds that a quorum is not present, that the point of order is
considered as withdrawn, because the Chair is no longer putting the ques-
tion (May 16, 1977, p. 14785). At the conclusion of debate on all motions
to suspend the rules on a legislative day, the Speaker announces that the
question will be put on each motion on which further proceedings have
been postponed—either de novo if objection to the vote has been made
under clause 6 of rule XX (formerly clause 4 of rule XV) or for a ‘‘yea
[839]
and nay’’ or recorded vote if previously ordered by the House in the order
in which the motions had been entered (June 4, 1974, pp. 17521–47). Clause
8(a) of rule XX (formerly clause 5(b) of rule I) does not require the Chair’s
customary announcement at the beginning of consideration of motions to
suspend the rules that the Chair intends to postpone possible record votes
(Feb. 23, 1993, p. 3281; Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32385).
Under the authority to postpone further proceedings on a specified ques-
tion to a designated time within two legislative days, the Speaker may
simultaneously designate separate times for the resumption of proceedings
on separate postponed questions (Mar. 3, 1992, p. 4072). Once the Speaker
has postponed record votes to a designated place in the legislative schedule,
the Speaker may subsequently redesignate the time when the votes will
be taken within the appropriate period (June 6, 1984, p. 15080; Oct. 3,
1988, pp. 27782, 27878). When the House adjourns on the second legislative
day after postponement of a question under this clause without resuming
proceedings thereon, the question remains unfinished business on the next
legislative day (Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20922).
Following the first postponed vote on motions to suspend the rules, the
Speaker may reduce to not less than five minutes the time for taking votes
on any or all of the subsequent motions on which votes have been postponed
(June 4, 1974, p. 17547). Having clustered record votes on motions to sus-
pend the rules and then having clustered record votes on passage of other
measures considered immediately after debate on the suspension motions,
the Speaker may, pursuant to this clause, conduct all the postponed votes
in one sequence and reduce to five minutes the time for all electronic votes
after the first suspension vote (May 17, 1983, p. 12508; Oct. 2, 1989, p.
22724). However, the Chair may decline to recognize for a unanimous-
consent request to reduce to five minutes the first vote in the series, be-
cause the bell and light system would not give adequate notice of the initial
five-minute vote (Oct. 8, 1985, p. 26666; see also § 1032, infra). However,
before the 106th Congress, where a series of votes had been postponed
pursuant to this clause to occur following a 15-minute vote on another
measure not a part of that series, the vote on the first postponed measure
could have been reduced to five minutes only by unanimous consent (May
24, 1983, p. 13595; July 22, 1996, p. 18410). By unanimous consent waiving
the five-minute minimum set by paragraph (c) (formerly clause 5(b)(3) of
rule I), the House has authorized the Speaker to put remaining postponed
questions to two-minute electronic votes (Oct. 4, 1988, pp. 28126, 28148).
The Speaker may entertain a unanimous-consent request for the consider-
ation of a similar Senate measure following passage of a House bill and
before the next postponed vote (Feb. 15, 1983, p. 2175). Because a resolu-
tion raising a question of the privileges of the House takes precedence
over a motion to suspend the rules, it may be offered and voted on between
motions to suspend the rules on which the Speaker has postponed record
votes (May 17, 1983, p. 12486). Proceedings may not resume on a postponed
question of agreeing to a 20-day motion to instruct conferees after the
[840]
Rule XX, clause 9 § 1031–§ 1032
managers have filed a conference report in the House (Oct. 19, 1999, p.
25961).
For several years before the 107th Congress, special rules adopted by
the House commonly provided the chair of the Committee of the Whole
authority to postpone and cluster requests for recorded votes on amend-
ments. In the 107th Congress that authority was given to the chair in
the standing rules by adoption of a new clause 6(g) of rule XVIII. For
a discussion of such authority, see § 984, supra.
Former clause 2 of rule VIII was adopted in 1880, although the practice
§ 1031. Former pairs.
of pairing had then existed in the House for many years
(V, 5981). The language of the clause was slightly al-
tered by amendment in 1972 to reflect the installation of electronic voting
in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 1123, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36005–12). It was
amended in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20) to permit
pairs to be announced in the Committee of the Whole. Former clause 2
of rule VIII was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). ‘‘Live’’ pairs still may be announced under clause 3 of rule XX (§ 1015,
supra).
Before the 106th Congress, pairs were not announced at a time other
than that prescribed by the former rule (V, 6046), and the voting intentions
of an absent Member were not otherwise announced by a colleague (VIII,
3151). Before the 94th Congress pairs were not permitted in Committee
of the Whole (V, 5984; Speaker Albert, Jan. 15, 1973, p. 1054). The House
did not consider questions arising out of the breaking of a pair (V, 5982,
5983, 6095; VIII, 3082, 3085, 3087–3089, 3093), or permit a Member to
vote after the call on the plea that he had refrained because of misunder-
standing as to a pair (V, 6080, 6081). Discussion of the origin of the practice
of pairing in the House and Senate (VIII, 3076). On questions requiring
a two-thirds majority Members were paired two in the affirmative against
one in the negative (VIII, 3088; Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32685). For Speaker
Clark’s interpretation of the rule and practice regarding pairs, see VIII,
3089.
Five-minute votes
9. The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the
§ 1032. ‘‘15-and-5’’ minimum time for electronic voting
voting.
on any question arising without in-
tervening business after an electronic vote on
another question if notice of possible five-minute
voting for a given series of votes was issued be-
fore the preceding electronic vote.
[841]
The Speaker’s authority to reduce record votes to five minutes, provided

the first vote in any series is a 15-minute vote, gradually expanded over
the years as follows: (1) on a bill, resolution, or conference report following
a vote on a motion to recommit as first added in the 96th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16); (2) on amendments reported from the
Committee of the Whole following a vote on the first such amendment,
as added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72); (3) on
adoption of a special order of business following a vote on ordering the
previous question thereon as added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49), and expanded to any underlying question following a vote
on ordering the previous question in the 104th Congress (sec. 223(e), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469); (4) on any incidental question under this
clause as added in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47);
and (5) finally (the present language of the rule), on any question arising
without intervening business after an electronic vote on another question
in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Before
found in former clause 5(b) of rule XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Five-minute votes are now permitted at the discretion of the Chair in
the following circumstances: (1) under clause 9 on any question arising
without intervening business after an electronic vote on another question
if notice of possible five-minute voting was properly issued (which includes
the authority also granted under clause 8(c)); (2) under clause 6(b)(3) of
rule XVIII, on a pending question immediately following a regular quorum
call in Committee of the Whole. Votes of not less than two minutes are
now permitted at the discretion of the chair of the Committee of the Whole
in the following circumstances: (1) under clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, on any
or all pending amendments immediately following a 15-minute recorded
vote on the first such pending amendment; (2) under clause 6(g) of rule
XVIII, on a postponed question on adoption of an amendment that imme-
diately follows another electronic vote. This clause does not give the Chair
the authority to reduce to five minutes the vote on a motion to recommit
occurring immediately after a recorded vote on an amendment reported
from the Committee of the Whole (June 29, 1994, p. 15107). The Chair
does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to reduce a vote below
the minimum if Members have not been given sufficient notice (e.g., July
14, 1999, p. 16008; June 23, 2004, p. 13734; Sept. 15, 2005, p. 20442; July
19, 2007, p. 19838). However, the Chair may entertain such a request
when circumstances ensure sufficient notice (June 24, 2005, pp. 14220,
14232; June 15, 2007, pp. 15971, 15999). The House has by unanimous
consent authorized the Speaker to reduce to two minutes electronic votes
conducted under this clause (e.g., July 23, 2007, p. 20108).
Where five-minute voting is interrupted by a one-minute speech, unani-
mous consent is required to continue five-minute voting (June 25, 2002,
p. 11211). A voice vote on the question of adoption of a resolution following
a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question is not construed as
[842]
Rule XX, clause 11 § 1033–§ 1034
‘‘intervening business’’ such as would preclude five-minute votes on certain

postponed questions (Sept. 26, 2002, pp. 18096, 18097). In the 95th Con-
gress, the Speaker announced that changes could be made electronically
at any time during a vote reduced to five minutes under the rules (Speaker
O’Neill, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) and changes may now be made electroni-
cally on a vote of a minimum duration of less than 15 minutes. Once the
Clerk has announced changes, the voting stations close and further
changes must be made in the well (Nov. 17, 2005, p. 26580).
Automatic yeas and nays

10. The yeas and nays shall be considered as
§ 1033. Yeas and nays ordered when the Speaker puts the
ordered on certain
questions. question on passage of a bill or joint
resolution, or on adoption of a con-
ference report, making general appropriations,
or increasing Federal income tax rates (within
the meaning of clause 5 of rule XXI), or on final
adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budg-
et or conference report thereon.
This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 214, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XV (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair announced the ordering of the yeas and
nays under this clause on passage of a joint resolution not only further
continuing appropriations for the current fiscal year but also enacting by
reference six general appropriation bills (Oct. 21, 2003, pp. 25314, 25315).
Ballot votes
11. In a case of ballot for election, a majority
§ 1034. Elections by of the votes shall be necessary to an
ballot.
election. When there is not such a
majority on the first ballot, the process shall be
repeated until a majority is obtained. In all bal-
loting blanks shall be rejected, may not be
counted in the enumeration of votes, and may
not be reported by the tellers.
[843]
§ 1035–§ 1037 Rule XXI, clause 2
This rule was first adopted in 1789 and was amended in 1837 (V, 6003).
It was renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). The last election by ballot
seems to have occurred in 1868 (V, 6003).
RULE XXI
RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN BILLS
Reservation of certain points of order

1. At the time a general appropriation bill is
§ 1035. Reservation of reported, all points of order against
points of order.
provisions therein shall be consid-
ered as reserved.
This clause was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), rendering unnecessary the former practice that a
Member reserve points of order when a general appropriation bill was re-
ferred to the calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, in order that provisions in violation of rule XXI could be
stricken in the Committee of the Whole (see § 1044, infra). Before the House
former clause 8 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
General appropriation bills and amend-

ments
2. (a)(1) An appropriation may not be reported
§ 1036. Unauthorized in a general appropriation bill, and
appropriations
reported in general may not be in order as an amend-
appropriation bills or
amendments thereto.
ment thereto, for an expenditure
not previously authorized by law,
except to continue appropriations for public
works and objects that are already in progress.
(2) A reappropriation of unexpended balances
§ 1037. of appropriations may not be re-
Reappropriations
prohibited. ported in a general appropriation
bill, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto, except to continue appro-
priations for public works and objects that are
[844]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1038–§ 1039
already in progress. This subparagraph does not

apply to transfers of unexpended balances with-
in the department or agency for which they were
originally appropriated that are reported by the
Committee on Appropriations.
(b) A provision changing existing law may not
§ 1038. Legislation in be reported in a general appropria-
reported general
appropriation bills; tion bill, including a provision mak-
exceptions.
ing the availability of funds contin-
gent 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 (which
may include those recommended to the Com-
mittee on Appropriations by direction of a legis-
lative committee having jurisdiction over the
subject matter) and except rescissions of appro-
priations contained in appropriation Acts.
(c) An amendment to a general appropriation
§ 1039. Legislation or bill shall not be in order if changing
limitations in
amendments to existing law, including an amend-
general appropriation
bills.
ment making the availability of
funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by exist-
ing law for the period of the appropriation. Ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (d), an amend-
ment proposing a limitation not specifically con-
tained or authorized in existing law for the pe-
riod of the limitation shall not be in order dur-
ing consideration of a general appropriation bill.
[845]
(d) After a general appropriation bill has been

§ 1040. Motion to rise read for amendment, a motion that
and report as
preferential to the Committee of the Whole House
amendments.
on the state of the Union rise and
report the bill to the House with such amend-
ments as may have been adopted shall, if offered
by the Majority Leader or a designee, have prec-
edence over motions to amend the bill. If such a
motion to rise and report is rejected or not of-
fered, amendments proposing limitations not
specifically contained or authorized in existing
law for the period of the limitation or proposing
germane amendments that retrench expendi-
tures by reductions of amounts of money covered
by the bill may be considered.
(e) A provision other than an appropriation
§ 1041. Designated designated an emergency under sec-
emergencies in
reported tion 251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of
the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act, a rescission of budget
authority, or a reduction in direct spending or
an amount for a designated emergency may not
be reported in an appropriation bill or joint reso-
lution containing an emergency designation
under section 251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of such
Act and may not be in order as an amendment
thereto.
(f) During the reading of an appropriation bill
§ 1042. Offsetting for amendment in the Committee of
amendments en bloc
to appropriation bills. the Whole House on the state of the
Union, it shall be in order to con-

sider en bloc amendments proposing only to
transfer appropriations among objects in the bill
[846]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1043
without increasing the levels of budget authority

or outlays in the bill. When considered en bloc
under this paragraph, such amendments may
amend portions of the bill not yet read for
amendment (following disposition of any points
of order against such portions) and are not sub-
ject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The 25th Congress in 1837 was the first to adopt a rule prohibiting
appropriations in a general appropriation bill or
§ 1043. History of
clause 2 of rule XXI.amendment thereto not previously authorized by law,
in order to prevent delay of appropriation bills because
of contention over propositions of legislation. In 1838 that Congress added
the exception to permit unauthorized appropriations for continuation of
works in progress and for contingencies for carrying on departments of
the Government. The rule remained in that form until the 44th Congress
in 1876, when William S. Holman of Indiana persuaded the House to
amend the rule to permit germane legislative retrenchments. In 1880, the
46th Congress dropped the exception that permitted unauthorized appro-
priations for contingencies of Government departments, and modified the
‘‘Holman Rule’’ 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 retrenchment
exception remained in place until the 49th Congress in 1885, when it was
dropped until the 52d Congress in 1891, and then reinserted through the
53d Congress until 1894. It was again dropped in the 54th Congress from
1895 until reinserted in the 62d Congress in 1911 (IV, 3578; VII, 1125).
The clause remained unamended until January 3, 1983, when the 98th
Congress restructured it in the basic form of paragraphs (a)–(d). Clerical
in the 106th Congress, including a change to clause 2(a)(2) to clarify that
the point of order lies against the offending provision in the text and not
against consideration of the entire bill. At that time former clause 6 was
transferred to clause 2(a)(2) and former clause 2(a) became clause 2(a)(1)
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Paragraph (a)(1) (formerly paragraph (a)) retained the prohibition
against unauthorized appropriations in general appropriation bills and
amendments thereto except in continuation of works in progress.
Paragraph (a)(2) (formerly clause 6), from section 139(c) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190f(c)), was made part of the
standing rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24). Previously, a
reappropriation of an unexpended balance for an object authorized by law
[847]
§ 1043 Rule XXI, clause 2
was in order on a general appropriation bill (IV, 3591, 3592; VII, 1156,
1158). This provision was amended in the 99th Congress by section 228(b)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L.
99–177) to permit the Committee on Appropriations to report transfers
of unexpended balances within the department or agency for which origi-
nally appropriated.
Paragraph (b) narrowed the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ exception from the prohibi-
tion against legislation to cover only retrenchments reducing amounts of
money included in the bill as reported, and permitted legislative commit-
tees with proper jurisdiction to recommend such retrenchments to the Ap-
propriations Committee for discretionary inclusion in the reported bill. The
last exception in paragraph (b), permitting the inclusion of legislation re-
scinding appropriations in appropriation Acts, was added in the 99th Con-
gress by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(sec. 228(a), P.L. 99–177). The latter feature of the paragraph does not
extend to a rescission of budget authority provided by a law other than
an appropriation Act (see, § 1052, infra). In the 105th Congress paragraph
(b) was amended to treat as legislation a provision reported in a general
appropriation bill that makes funding contingent on whether cir-
cumstances not made determinative by existing law are ‘‘known’’ (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).
Paragraph (c) retained the prohibition against amendments changing
existing law but permitted limitation amendments during the reading of
the bill by paragraph only if specifically authorized by existing law for
the period of the limitation. In the 105th Congress paragraph (c) was
amended to treat as legislation an amendment to a general appropriation
bill that makes funding contingent on whether circumstances not made
determinative by existing law are ‘‘known’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p.
121).
Paragraph (d) provided a new procedure for consideration of retrench-
ment and other limitation amendments only when the reading of a general
appropriation bill has been completed and only if the Committee of the
Whole does not adopt a motion to rise and report the bill back to the House
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). In the 104th Congress paragraph (d) was
amended to limit the availability of the preferential motion to rise and
report to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 468). In the 105th Congress it was further amended to make
the motion preferential to any motion to amend at that stage (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).
Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 104th Congress (sec. 215, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). However, paragraph (e) is no longer effective
with respect to discretionary spending because under section 275 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act section 251 expired
on September 30, 2002. A technical correction to paragraph (f) was effected
in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).
[848]
As the rule applies only to general appropriation bills, which are not
§ 1044. Points of order
enumerated or defined in the rules (VII, 1116), bills
on general appropriating only for one purpose have been held not
appropriation bills to be ‘‘general’’ within the meaning of this clause (VII,
generally. 1122). The following have been held not to be ‘‘general
appropriation bills’’ within the purview of this clause:
(1) a joint resolution providing an appropriation for a single Government
agency (Jan. 31, 1962, p. 1352); (2) a joint resolution only containing con-
tinuing appropriations for diverse agencies to provide funds until regular
appropriation bills are enacted (Sept. 21, 1967, p. 26370); (3) a joint resolu-
tion providing an appropriation for a single Government agency and per-
mitting a transfer of a portion of those funds to another agency (Oct. 25,
1979, p. 29627); (4) a joint resolution transferring funds already appro-
priated from one specific agency to another (Mar. 26, 1980, p. 6716); (5)
a joint resolution transferring unobligated balances to the President to
be available for specified purposes but containing no new budget authority
(Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3239).
A point of order under this rule does not apply to a special order reported
from the Committee on Rules ‘‘self-executing’’ the adoption in the House
of an amendment changing existing law (July 27, 1993, p. 17117). By unani-
mous consent the Committee of the Whole may vacate proceedings under
specified points of order (June 7, 1991, p. 13973). A point of order may
be withdrawn as a matter of right (in the Committee of the Whole as
well as in the House) before action thereon (May 19, 2000, p. 8600).
As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require consideration
in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the enforcement of the rule
must ordinarily occur during consideration in Committee of the Whole,
where the Chair, in response to a point of order, may rule out any portion
of the bill in conflict with the rule (IV, 3811; Sept. 8, 1965, pp. 23140,
23182). Portions of the bill thus stricken are not reported back to the House.
Before the adoption of clause 1 (formerly clause 8) in the 104th Congress
(see § 1035, supra), it was necessary that a Member reserve points of order
when a general appropriation bill was referred to the calendar of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, in order that provi-
sions in violation of the rule could be stricken in the Committee (V, 6921–
6925; VIII, 3450; Feb. 6, 1926, p. 3456). Where points of order had been
reserved pending a unanimous-consent request that the committee be per-
mitted to file its report when the House would not be in session, it was
not necessary that they be reserved again when the report ultimately was
presented as privileged when the House was in session, because the initial
reservation carried over to the subsequent filing (Mar. 1, 1983, p. 3241).
In an instance in which points of order were not reserved against an appro-
priation bill when it was reported to the House and referred to the Com-
mittee of the Whole, points of order in the Committee of the Whole against
a proposition in violation of this clause were overruled on the ground that
[849]
the chair of the Committee of the Whole lacked authority to pass upon
the question (Apr. 8, 1943, p. 3150, 3153).
The enforcement of the rule also occurs in the House in that a motion
to recommit a general appropriation bill may not propose an amendment
containing legislation (Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28883; Aug. 1, 2008, p. l). Clause
2(c) provides that a limitation not specifically contained in existing law
or authorized for the period of the limitation shall not be in order during
consideration of a general appropriation bill except as contemplated by
clause 2(d), including a requirement that it come at the end of the reading
(Speaker Foley, Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159; Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18546; June 18,
2009, p. l); and such amendment is precluded whether the Committee
of the Whole has risen and reported automatically pursuant to a special
rule or, instead, by a motion at the end of the reading for amendment
(June 22, 1995, p. 16844).
Points of order against unauthorized appropriations or legislation on
general appropriation bills may be made as to the whole or only a portion
of a paragraph (IV, 3652; V, 6881). The fact that a point of order is made
against a portion of a paragraph does not prevent another point of order
against the whole paragraph (V, 6882; July 31, 1985, p. 21895), nor does
it prevent another Member from demanding that the original point of order
be extended to the entire paragraph (e.g., July 16, 1998, p. 15806; Sept.
4, 2003, pp. 21164, 21167, pp. 21169, 21170; Sept. 14, 2004, p. 18384;
June 29, 2005, p. 14804). If a portion of a proposed amendment is out
of order, it is sufficient for the rejection of the whole amendment (V, 6878–
6880). If a point of order is sustained against any portion of a package
of amendments considered en bloc, all the amendments are ruled out of
order and must be reoffered separately, or those that are not subject to
a point of order may be considered en bloc by unanimous consent (Sept.
16, 1981, pp. 20735–38; June 21, 1984, p. 17687; July 26, 2001, pp. 14716,
14721). Where a point of order is sustained against the whole of a para-
graph the whole must be stricken, but it is otherwise when the point of
order is made only against a portion (V, 6884, 6885).
General appropriation bills are read ‘‘scientifically’’ only by paragraph
headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order against a para-
graph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto or before
the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount (Deschler, ch.
26, § 2.26). A point of order against a paragraph under this clause may
be made only after that paragraph has been read by the Clerk, and not
before its reading pending consideration of an amendment inserting lan-
guage immediately prior thereto (June 6, 1985, pp. 14605, 14609). Where
the reading of a paragraph of a general appropriation bill has been dis-
pensed with by unanimous consent, the Chair inquires whether there are
points of order against the paragraph before entertaining amendments or
directing the Clerk to read further, but does not make such an inquiry
where the Clerk has actually read the paragraph (May 31, 1984, p. 14608).
Where a portion of the bill is considered as having been read and open
[850]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1044a
to amendment by unanimous consent, points of order against provisions

in that portion must be made before amendments are offered, and may
not be reserved (Dec. 1, 1982, p. 28175; May 19, 2000, p. 8595; July 22,
2003, p. 18984). Where a chapter is considered as read by unanimous con-
sent and open to amendment at any point, no amendments are offered
and the Clerk begins to read the next chapter, it is too late to make a
point of order against a paragraph in the preceding chapter (June 11, 1985,
p. 15181). It is too late to rule out the entire paragraph after points of
order against specific portions have been sustained and an amendment
to the paragraph has been offered (June 27, 1974, pp. 21670–72).
The fact that legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter of an amend-
ment may rest with the Committee on Appropriations does not immunize
the amendment from the application of clause 2(c) of rule XXI (July 17,
1996, p. 17550; July 24, 1996, p. 18898). The ‘‘works in progress’’ exception
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI is a defense to a point of order against an
unauthorized appropriation reported in a general appropriation bill and
is not a defense to a point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI that
an amendment to an appropriation bill constitutes legislation (July 24,
1996, p. 18898).
For a discussion of perfecting amendments to unauthorized appropria-
tions or legislation permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill
by failure to raise or by waiver of a point of order, see § 1058, infra.
To resolve an ambiguity when ruling on a point of order, the Chair may:
(1) examine legislative history established during de-
§ 1044a. Points of
order on general bate on an amendment against which a point of order
appropriation bills, has been reserved (June 14, 1978, p. 17651); (2) inquire
deliberation of. after its author’s intent (Oct. 29, 1991, p. 28818); or
(3) examine the accompanying report to determine the
intent of the section (June 25, 2004, p. 14181).
In the administration of the rule, it is the practice that those upholding
an item of appropriation should have the burden of showing the law author-
izing it (IV, 3597; VII, 1179, 1233, 1276; June 23, 2000, p. 12123). Thus,
the burden of proving the authorization for appropriations carried in a
bill, or that the language in the bill constitutes a valid limitation that
does not change existing law, falls on the proponents and managers of
the bill (May 28, 1968, p. 15357; Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062; June 25, 2004,
p. 14181). By the same token, the proponent of an amendment has the
burden of proof to show that an appropriation contained in an amendment
is authorized by law (e.g., May 11, 1971, p. 14471; Oct. 29, 1991, p. 28791;
July 26, 1995, p. 20567; July 27, 1995, pp. 20808, 20811; July 31, 1995,
p. 21207) or that the amendment constitutes a valid limitation (July 17,
1975, p. 23239; June 16, 1976, p. 18666; July 18, 1995, p. 19357; June
24, 2003, pp. 15858, 15859). For example, the proponent of a provision
in the bill or of an amendment, as the case may be, has the burden to
show the following: (1) that any duties imposed by a limitation are merely
ministerial or already required under existing law (July 16, 1998, p. 15829);
[851]
§ 1044b Rule XXI, clause 2
(2) in the case of language proposing a double-negative, that the object

of the double-negative is specifically contemplated by existing law (July
23, 2003, pp. 19250–51, pp. 19251–53; see § 1053, infra); (3) that the amend-
ment does not increase levels of budget authority or outlays within the
meaning of clause 2(f) (e.g., Oct. 11, 2001, pp. 19368, 19369; see also July
13, 2004, pp. 15193, 15194, p. l and May 25, 2006, p. 9790, where the
Chair sustained the point of order in part because the manager’s averment
that the amendment increased outlays went unchallenged); (4) if the lan-
guage is susceptible to more than one interpretation, that it merits the
construction that it does not violate the rule (Deschler, ch. 26, § 22.26),
although that burden may be met by a showing that only the requirements
of existing law, and not any new requirements, are recited in the language
(Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22206).
The mere recitation in an amendment that a determination is to be made
pursuant to existing laws and regulations, absent a citation to the law
imposing such responsibility, is not sufficient proof by the proponent of
an amendment to overcome a point of order that the amendment con-
stitutes legislation (Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25606).
The Chair may overrule a point of order that appropriations for a certain
agency are unauthorized upon citation to an organic statute creating the
agency, absent any showing that the organic law has been overtaken by
a scheme of periodic reauthorization; the Chair may hear further argument
and reverse a ruling, however, where existing law not previously called
to the Chair’s attention would require the ruling to be reversed (VIII, 3435;
June 8, 1983, p. 14854, where a law amending the statute creating the
Bureau of the Mint with the express purpose of requiring annual authoriza-
tions was subsequently called to the Chair’s attention). Reported provisions
in a general appropriation bill described in the accompanying report as
directly or indirectly changing the application of existing law are presum-
ably legislation, absent rebuttal by the committee (May 31, 1984, p. 14591).
Where the reading of a general appropriation bill for amendment has
been completed (or dispensed with), including the last
§ 1044b. Motion to rise
and report. paragraph of the bill containing the citation to the short
title (July 30, 1986, p. 18214), the Chair (under the
former form of the rule, which made the preferential motion available to
any Member) might first inquire whether any Member sought to offer an
amendment (formerly, one not prohibited by clauses 2(a) or (c)) before rec-
ognizing Members to offer limitation or retrenchment amendments (June
2, 1983, p. 14317; Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406; Oct. 27, 1983, p. 29630), includ-
ing pro forma amendments (Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18126). Pursuant to clause
2(d), a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted is not debatable (Apr.
23, 1987, p. 9613) and takes precedence over any amendment (formerly
only over a limitation or retrenchment amendment) (July 30, 1985, p.
21534; July 23, 1986, p. 17431; Apr. 23, 1987, p. 9613), but only after
completion of the reading and disposition of amendments not otherwise
[852]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1044b
precluded (June 30, 1992, p. 17135). Thus a motion that the Committee
rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that it
be recommitted, with instructions to report back to the House with an
amendment proposing a limitation, does not take precedence over the mo-
tion to rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted (Sept. 19, 1983, p. 24647 (sustained on appeal)).
An amendment not only reducing an amount in a paragraph of an appro-
priation bill but also limiting expenditure of those funds on a particular
project (i.e., a limitation not contained in existing law) was held not in
order during the reading of that paragraph but only at the end of the
bill under clause 2(d) (July 23, 1986, p. 17431; June 15, 1988, p. 14719).
Where language of limitation was stricken from a general appropriation
bill on a point of order that it changed existing law, an amendment pro-
posing to reinsert the limitation without its former legislative content was
held not in order before completion of the reading for amendment (June
18, 1991, p. 15214; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22214). A motion that the Committee
of the Whole rise and report to the House with the recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken takes precedence over the motion to amend
under clause 9 of rule XVIII (formerly clause 7 of rule XXIII) and also
over the motion to rise and report under clause 2(d) (July 24, 1986, p.
17641).
The 109th Congress adopted a resolution creating a point of order against
the motion to rise and report an appropriation bill to the House where
the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeded an applicable allocation of
new budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, and setting forth procedures in the Committee of the Whole
in the event that the point of order was sustained (sec. 2, H. Res. 248,
Apr. 28, 2005, p. 8309). The 110th through 112th Congresses adopted the
same procedure (sec. 511(a)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted
Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 3(a)(4), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l), to wit:
SEC. 3. (a)(4)(A) During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, except as
provided in subparagraph (C), a motion that the Committee of the Whole
rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in order if the bill, as
amended, exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority under
section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by
the Committee on the Budget.
(B) If a point of order under subparagraph (A) is sustained, the Chair
shall put the question: ‘Shall the Committee of the Whole rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted
notwithstanding that the bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?’. Such ques-
tion shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
a proponent of the question and an opponent but shall be decided without
intervening motion.
(C) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply—
[853]
(i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or

(ii) after disposition of a question under subparagraph (B) on a
given bill.
(D) If a question under subparagraph (B) is decided in the negative,
no further amendment shall be in order except—
(i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a de-
mand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole; and
(ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chair or ranking mi-
nority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their des-
ignees, for the purpose of debate.
A treaty may provide the authorization by existing law required in the
rule to justify appropriations if it has been ratified by
§ 1045. Authorization
of law for the contracting parties (IV, 3587); however, where ex-
appropriations. isting law authorizes appropriations for the U.S. share
of facilities to be recommended in an agreement with
another country containing specified elements, an agreement in principle
with that country predating the authorization law and lacking the required
elements is insufficient authorization (June 28, 1993, p. 14421). An Execu-
tive Order does not constitute sufficient authorization in law absent proof
of its derivation from a statute enacted by Congress authorizing the order
and expenditure of funds (June 15, 1973, p. 19855; June 25, 1974, p. 21036).
Thus a Reorganization Plan submitted by the President pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 906 has the status of statutory law when it becomes effective and
is sufficient authorization to support an appropriation for an office created
by Executive Order issued pursuant to the Reorganization Plan (June 21,
1974, p. 20595). A constitutional guarantee of just compensation for a gov-
ernmental taking of private property for public use does not itself constitute
sufficient authorization by law for appropriations in a general appropria-
tion bill for compensation of particular private property owners (July 18,
2001, pp. 13662–65; cf. VII, 1144).
A resolution of the House has been held sufficient authorization for an
appropriation for the salary of an employee of the House (IV, 3656–3658)
even though the resolution may have been agreed to only by a preceding
House (IV, 3660). Previous enactment of items of appropriation unauthor-
ized by law does not justify similar appropriations in subsequent bills (VII,
1145, 1150, 1151) unless, if through appropriations previously made, a
function of the Government has been established that would bring it into
the category of continuation of works in progress (VII, 1280), or unless
legislation in a previous appropriation act has become permanent law (May
20, 1964, p. 11422). The omission to appropriate during a series of years
for an object authorized by law does not repeal the law, and consequently
an appropriation when proposed is not subject to the point of order (IV,
3595).
[854]
The law authorizing each head of a department to employ such numbers

of clerks, messengers, copyists, watchmen, laborers, and other employees
as may be appropriated for by Congress from year to year is held to author-
ize appropriations for those positions not otherwise authorized by law (IV,
3669, 3675, 4739); but this law does not apply to offices not within depart-
ments or not at the seat of Government (IV, 3670–3674). A permanent
law authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, together with legisla-
tive provisions authorizing additional employment contained in an appro-
priation bill enacted for that fiscal year, constituted sufficient authorization
for a lump sum supplemental appropriation for the White House for the
same fiscal year (Nov. 30, 1973, p. 38854). By a general provision of law,
appropriations for investigations and the acquisition and diffusion of infor-
mation by the Agriculture Department on subjects related to agriculture
are generally in order in the agricultural appropriation bill (IV, 3649).
It has once been held that this law would also authorize appropriations
for the instrumentalities of such investigations (IV, 3615); but these would
not include the organization of a bureau to conduct the work (IV, 3651).
The law does not authorize general investigations by the department (IV,
3652), cooperation with State investigations (IV, 3650; VII, 1301, 1302),
the investigation of foods in relation to commerce (IV, 3647, 3648; VII,
1298), or the compiling of tests at an exposition (IV, 3653).
A paragraph appropriating funds for matching grants to States was held
unauthorized where the authorizing law did not require State matching
funds (June 28, 1993, p. 14418). A paragraph funding a project from the
Highway Trust Fund (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22175; June 26, 2001, p. 11936;
Nov. 28, 2001, pp. 23239, 23240) or from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund (e.g., Sept. 14, 2004, p. 18384; June 29, 2005, p. 14798) was held
unauthorized where such funding was authorized only from the general
fund. A paragraph providing funds for the President to meet ‘‘unanticipated
needs’’ was held unauthorized (July 16, 1998, p. 15808). The authorization
must be enacted before the appropriation may be included in an appropria-
tion bill; thus delaying the availability of an appropriation pending enact-
ment of an authorization does not protect the item of appropriation against
a point of order under this clause (Apr. 26, 1972, p. 14455). Similarly,
an amendment limiting funds to the extent provided in authorizing legisla-
tion on or after the date of enactment of the pending appropriation bill
is not in order (May 19, 2005, pp. 10376, 10377).
The failure of Congress to enact into law separate legislation specifically
modifying eligibility requirements for grant programs under existing law
does not necessarily render appropriations for those programs subject to
a point of order, where more general existing law authorizes appropriations
for all of the programs proposed to be modified by new legislation pending
before Congress (June 8, 1978, p. 16778). However, whether organic stat-
utes or general grants of authority in law constitute sufficient authoriza-
tion to support appropriations depends on whether the general laws appli-
cable to the function or department in question require specific or annual
[855]
authorizations (June 14, 1978, pp. 17616, 17622, 17626, 17630) or on

whether a periodic authorization scheme has subsequently occupied the
field (Sept. 9, 1997, p. 18197). An authorization of ‘‘such sums as may
be necessary’’ is sufficient to support any dollar amount, but has no tend-
ency to relieve other conditions of the authorization law (June 28, 1993,
p. 1442). Where existing law authorizes certain appropriations from a par-
ticular trust fund without fiscal year limitation, language that such an
appropriation remain available until expended does not constitute legisla-
tion (July 15, 1993, p. 15848).
An amendment to a general appropriation bill providing that ‘‘not less
than’’ (or ‘‘not to exceed’’) a certain amount be made available to a program
requires an authorization (June 21, 1988, p. 15440; July 12, 2000, p. 14070;
July 13, 2000, p. 14084; July 25, 2007, pp. 20597, 20598).
Pursuant to clause 11(i) of rule X (formerly clause 9 of rule XLVIII),
no funds may be appropriated to certain agencies carrying out intelligence
and intelligence-related activities, unless such funds have been authorized
by law for the fiscal year in question.
Judgments of courts certified to Congress in accordance with law or au-
thorized by treaty (IV, 3634, 3635, 3644) and audited
§ 1046. Authorization
for claims and under authority of law have been held to be authoriza-
salaries. tion for appropriations for the payment of claims (IV,
3634, 3635). However, unadjudicated claims (IV, 3628),
even though ascertained and transmitted by an executive officer (IV, 3625–
3640), and findings filed under the Bowman Act do not constitute author-
ization (IV, 3643).
An appropriation for an object not otherwise authorized does not con-
stitute authorization to justify a continuance of the appropriation another
year (IV, 3588, 3589; VII, 1128, 1145, 1149, 1191), and the mere appropria-
tion for a salary does not create an office so as to justify appropriations
in succeeding years (IV, 3590, 3672, 3697), it being a general rule that
propositions to appropriate for salaries not established by law or to increase
salaries fixed by law are out of order (IV, 3664–3667, 3676–3679). An excep-
tion to these general principles is found in the established practice that
in the absence of a general law fixing a salary the amount appropriated
in the last appropriation bill has been held to be the legal salary (IV,
3687–3696). A law having established an office and fixed a salary, it is
not in order to provide for an unauthorized office and salary in lieu of
it (IV, 3680).
An appropriation for a public work in excess of a fixed limit of cost (IV,
3583, 3584; VII, 1133), or for extending a service beyond
§ 1047. Authorizations
for public works. the limits assigned by an executive officer exercising
a lawful discretion (IV, 3598), or by actual law (IV,
3582, 3585), or for purposes prohibited by law are out of order (IV, 3580,
3581, 3702), as is an appropriation from the Highway Trust Fund where
the project is specifically authorized from the general fund (Sept. 23, 1993,
p. 22175). However, the mere appropriation of a sum to complete a work
[856]
does not fix a limit of cost such as would exclude future appropriations
(IV, 3761). A declaration of policy in an act followed by specific provisions
conferring authority upon a governmental agency to perform certain func-
tions was construed not to authorize appropriations for purposes germane
to the policy but not specifically authorized by the act (VII, 1200). A point
of order will not lie against an amendment proposing to increase a lump
sum for public works projects where language in the bill limits use of the
lump sum appropriation to projects as authorized by law (Deschler, ch.
26, § 19.6), but where language in the bill limits use of the lump sum
both to projects ‘‘authorized by law’’ and ‘‘subject, where appropriate, to
enactment of authorizing legislation,’’ that paragraph constitutes an appro-
priation in part for some unauthorized projects and is not in order (June
6, 1985, p. 14617). Language in an appropriation bill precluding funds
for projects not authorized by law or beyond the amount authorized was
held to limit expenditures to authorized projects and was not legislation
(Deschler, ch. 25, § 2.18).
The provision excepting public works and objects that are already in
progress from the requirement that appropriations be
§ 1048. Continuation of
a public work by authorized by existing law (IV, 3578) has historically
appropriations. been applied only in cases of general revenue funding
(Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173). An
appropriation in violation of existing law or to extend a service beyond
a fixed limit is not in order as the continuance of a public work (IV, 3585,
3702–3724; VII, 1332; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173; Deschler, ch. 26, § 8.9).
The ‘‘works in progress’’ exception may not be invoked to fund a project
governed by a lapsed authorization and may not be invoked to fund a
project that is not yet under construction (July 31, 1995, p. 21207). Where
existing law (40 U.S.C. 3307) specifically prohibits the making of an appro-
priation to construct or alter any public building involving more than a
certain amount of money unless approved by the House and Senate Public
Works Committees, an appropriation for such purposes not authorized by
both committees is out of order notwithstanding the ‘‘works in progress’’
exemption, because the law specifically precludes the appropriation from
being made (June 8, 1983, p. 14855). An appropriation from the Highway
Trust Fund for an ongoing project was held not in order under the ‘‘works
in progress’’ exception where the Internal Revenue Code ‘‘occupied the
field’’ with a comprehensive authorization scheme not embracing the speci-
fied project (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173). Interruption
of a work does not necessarily remove it from the privileges of the rule
(IV, 3705–3708); but the continuation of the work must not be so condi-
tioned in relation to place as to become a new work (IV, 3704). It has
been held that a work has not begun within the meaning of the rule when
an appropriation has been made for a site for a public building (IV, 3785),
or when a commission has been created to select a site or when a site
has actually been selected for a work (IV, 3762, 3763), or when a survey
has been made (IV, 3782–3784). ‘‘Public works and objects already in
[857]
progress’’ include tangible matters like buildings, roads, etc., but not duties
of officials in executive departments (IV, 3709–3713), or the continuance
of a work indefinite as to completion and intangible in nature like the
gauging of streams (IV, 3714, 3715). A general system of roads on which
some work has been done, or an extension of an existing road (Sept. 22,
1993, p. 22140), may not be admitted as a work in progress (VII, 1333).
Concerning reappropriation for continuation of public works in progress,
see § 1031, supra.
Thus the continuation of the following works has been admitted: a topo-
§ 1049. Examples
graphical survey (IV, 3796, 3797; VII, 1382), a geologi-
illustrating the cal map (IV, 3795), marking of a boundary line (IV,
continuation of a 3717), marking graves of soldiers (IV, 3788), a list of
public work. claims (IV, 3717), and recoinage of coins in the Treasury
(IV, 3807); but the following works have not been ad-
mitted: investigation of materials, like coal (IV, 3721), scientific investiga-
tions (IV, 3719; VII, 1345), duties of a commission (IV, 3720; VII, 1344),
extension of foreign markets for goods (IV, 3722), printing of a series of
opinions indefinite in continuance (IV, 3718), free evening lectures in the
District of Columbia (IV, 3789), certain ongoing projects from the Highway
Trust Fund (Sept. 22, 1993, pp. 22140; Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22173), extension
of an existing road (Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22140), continuation of an extra
compensation for ordinary facility for carrying the mails (IV, 3808), al-
though the continuation of certain special mail facilities has been admitted
(IV, 3804–3806). However, appropriations for rent and repairs of buildings
or Government roads (IV, 3793, 3798) and bridges (IV, 3803) have been
admitted as in continuation of a work (IV, 3777, 3778), although it is not
in order as such to provide for a new building in place of one destroyed
(IV, 3606). It is not in order to repair paving adjacent to a public building
but in a city street, although it may have been laid originally by the Govern-
ment (IV, 3779). The purchase of adjoining land for a work already estab-
lished has been admitted under this principle (IV, 3766–3773) as have
additions to existing buildings in cases in which no limits of cost have
been shown (IV, 3774, 3775). However, the purchase of a separate and
detached lot of land is not admitted (IV, 3776). The continuation of con-
struction at the Kennedy Library, a project owned by the United States
and funded by a prior year’s appropriation, has been admitted notwith-
standing the absence of any current authorization (June 14, 1988, p.
14335). A provision of law authorizing Commissioners of the District of
Columbia to take over and operate the fish wharves of the city of Wash-
ington was held insufficient authority to admit an appropriation for recon-
structing the fish wharf (VII, 1187).
[858]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1050–§ 1052
Appropriations for new buildings at Government institutions have some-

times been admitted (IV, 3741–3750) when intended
§ 1050. New buildings
for the purposes of the institution (IV, 3747); but later
at existing institutions
decisions, in view of the indefinite extent of the practice
as in continuance of a
public work. made possible by the early decisions, have ruled out
propositions to appropriate for new buildings in navy
yards (IV, 3755–3759) and other establishments (IV, 3751–3754). Appro-
priations for new schoolhouses in the District of Columbia (IV, 3750; VII,
1358), for new Army hospitals (IV, 3740), for new lighthouses (IV, 3728),
armor-plate factories (IV, 3737–3739), and for additional playgrounds for
children in the District of Columbia (IV, 3792) have also been held not
to be in continuation of a public work.
By a former broad construction of the rule an appropriation of a new
and not otherwise authorized vessel of the Navy had
§ 1051. New vessel for
naval and other been held to be a continuance of a public work (IV, 3723,
services as in 3724); but this line of decisions has been overruled (VII,
continuation of a 1351; Jan. 22, 1926, p. 2621). Although appropriations
public work.
for new construction and procurement of aircraft and
equipment for the Navy are not in order, appropriations for continuing
experiments and development work on all types of aircraft are in order
(Jan. 22, 1926, p. 2623). This former interpretation was confined to naval
vessels, and did not apply to vessels in other services, like the Coast and
Geodetic Survey or Lighthouse Service (IV, 3725, 3726), or to floating or
stationary drydocks (IV, 3729–3736). The construction of a submarine cable
in extension of one already laid was held not to be the continuation of
a public work (IV, 3716), but an appropriation for the Washington-Alaska
military cable has been held in order (VII, 1348).
A provision changing existing law is construed to mean the enactment
of law where none exists (IV, 3812, 3813). For example,
§ 1052. Legislation
generally. the following provisions have been held out of order:
(1) permitting funds to remain available until expended
or beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill where existing law does not
permit such availability (Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27288; June 9, 2006, p. 10671);
(2) permitting funds to be available immediately upon enactment before
the fiscal year covered by the bill (July 29, 1986, p. 17981; June 28, 1988,
p. 16255); (3) permitting funds to be available to the extent provided in
advance in appropriation Acts but not explicitly beyond the fiscal year
in question (July 21, 1981, p. 16687); (4) setting a floor on spending that
is not established by existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19228, 19229); (5)
establishing a legislative formula for funding (Feb. 18, 2011, p. l).
Although clause 2(b) permits the Committee on Appropriations to report
rescissions of appropriations, an amendment proposing a rescission con-
stitutes legislation under clause 2(c) (May 26, 1993, p. 11326; Mar. 24,
2010, p. l), as does a provision proposing a rescission of budget authority
provided in law other than appropriations acts, such as contract authority
(e.g., Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22138; May 15, 1997, p. 8510; July 23, 1997, p.
[859]
15353; July 29, 1998, p. 17956) or a loan guarantee program (July 13,
2004, pp. 15212, 15213). Similarly, a provision canceling funds under the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was held to be legislation
(June 16, 2004, p. 12554). A provision constituting congressional dis-
approval of a deferral of budget authority proposed by the President pursu-
ant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is not in order if included
in a general appropriation bill rather than in a separate resolution of dis-
approval under that Act (July 29, 1982, pp. 18625, 18626).
A proposal to amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation
of appropriations in the absence of timely enactment of a regular appropria-
tion bill constitutes legislation in contravention of clause 2(c) (July 17,
1996, p. 17550; July 24, 1996, p. 18898). A proposal to designate an appro-
priation as ‘‘emergency spending’’ within the meaning of the budget-en-
forcement laws (or so designated under provisions of a budget resolution)
is fundamentally legislative in character (e.g., Sept. 8, 1999, pp. 20900;
June 19, 2000, pp. 11294–97 (sustained on appeal); June 20, 2001, p. 11224;
Oct. 16, 2003, pp. 24962, 24963; Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4700 0902 (sustained
on appeal)). Similarly, a provision containing an averment necessary to
qualify for certain scorekeeping under the Budget Act was conceded to
be legislation (July 20, 1989, p. 15374), even though the Budget Act con-
templates that expenditures may be mandated to occur before or following
a fiscal period if the law making those expenditures specifies that the tim-
ing is the result of a ‘‘significant’’ policy change (July 20, 1989, p. 15374).
Language in an appropriation bill precluding funds for projects not au-
thorized by law or beyond the amount authorized has been held in order
as simply limiting expenditures to authorized projects (Deschler, ch. 25,
§ 2.18). However, an amendment limiting funds to the extent provided for
in authorizing legislation on or after the date of enactment of the pending
appropriation bill is not in order (May 19, 2005, pp. 10376, 10377).
Although the object to be appropriated for may be described without
violating the rule (IV, 3864), an amendment proposing an appropriation
under a heading that indicates an unauthorized purpose as its object has
been ruled out (Oct. 29, 1991, p. 28814). For example, an amendment pro-
posing to make certain funds available for a specified report not con-
templated by existing law was held to constitute legislation in violation
of clause 2(c) (June 13, 2000, p. 10509). The fact that a legislative item
has been carried in appropriation bills for many years does not exempt
it from a point of order (VII, 1445, 1656). The reenactment from year to
year of a law intended to apply during the year of its enactment only is
not relieved, however, from the point that it is legislation (IV, 3822). Limits
of cost for public works may not be made or changed (IV, 3761, 3865–
3867; VII, 1446), nor contracts authorized (IV, 3868–3870; May 14, 1937,
p. 4595).
An amendment to a general appropriation bill stating a legislative posi-
tion constitutes legislation (July 24, 2001, pp. 14349, 14351; July 9, 2009,
p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal), p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal))
[860]
as does one establishing a select committee (Mar. 16, 2006, pp. 3793, 3794)
or a trust fund in the Treasury (June 9, 2006, p. 10680). An amendment
proposed in a motion to recommit incorporating by reference amendments
that changed existing law constitutes legislation (July 24, 2009, p. l).
Although the rule forbids a provision ‘‘changing existing law,’’ the House,
by practice, has established the principle that certain
§ 1053. Limitations on
appropriations ‘‘limitations’’ may be admitted. Just as the House may
generally. decline to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law,
so may it by limitation prohibit the use of the money
for part of the purpose while appropriating for the remainder of it (IV,
3936; VII, 1595). Paragraph (c) prohibits consideration of limitation amend-
ments during the reading of the bill by paragraph unless specifically au-
thorized by existing law for the period of the limitation, even if the amend-
ment is expanding a limitation already in the bill (July 23, 2003, p. 19238).
A limitation may provide that some or all of the appropriation under
consideration may not be used for a certain designated purpose (IV, 3917–
3926; VII, 1580). This designated purpose may reach the question of quali-
fications, for although it is not in order to legislate as to the qualifications
of the recipients of an appropriation (Deschler, ch. 26, §§ 53, 57.15), the
House may specify that no part of the appropriation may go to recipients
lacking certain qualifications (IV, 3942–3952; VII, 1655; June 4, 1970, p.
18412; June 27, 1974, p. 21662; Oct. 9, 1974, p. 34712; June 9, 1978, p.
16990).
A limitation amendment prohibiting the use of funds for the construction
of certain facilities unless such construction were subject to a project agree-
ment was held not in order during the reading of the bill, even though
existing law directed Federal officials to enter into such project agreements,
on the ground that limitation amendments are in order during the reading
only where existing law requires or permits the inclusion of limiting lan-
guage in an appropriation Act, and not merely where the limitation is
alleged to be ‘‘consistent with existing law’’ (June 28, 1988, p. 16267).
A limitation may place some minimal, incidental duties on Federal offi-
cials, who must determine the effect of such a limitation on appropriated
funds. However, a provision may not impose additional duties not required
by law, either explicitly or implicitly, or make the appropriation contingent
upon the performance of such duties (VII, 1676; June 11, 1968, p. 16712;
July 31, 1969, pp. 21631–33; May 28, 1968, p. 15350; July 26, 1985, p.
20807; see § 1054, infra). The fact that a limitation may indirectly interfere
with an executive official’s discretionary authority by denying the use of
funds (June 24, 1976, p. 20408) or may impose certain incidental burdens
on executive officials (Aug. 25, 1976, p. 27737) does not destroy the char-
acter of the limitation as long as it does not otherwise amend existing
law and is descriptive of functions and findings already required to be
undertaken by existing law. For example, a limitation precluding funds
for specified Federal departments to file certain motions in specified civil
actions (all matters of public record in the litigation and therefore available
[861]
to responsible intervening Federal officials) was held to be a proper limita-

tion (July 18, 2001, pp. 13683, 13684).
The limitation must apply solely to the money of the appropriation under
consideration (VII, 1597, 1600, 1720; Feb. 26, 1958, p. 2895). For example,
a limitation on funds: (1) may not apply to money appropriated in other
Acts (IV, 3927, 3928; VII, 1495, 1525; June 28, 1971, p. 22442; June 27,
1974, pp. 21670–72; May 13, 1981, p. 9663); (2) may not require funds
available to an agency in any future fiscal year for a certain purpose to
be subject to limitations specified in advance in appropriations Acts (May
8, 1986, p. 10156). The tendency of a limitation to change existing law
is measured against the state of existing law ‘‘for the period of the limita-
tion,’’ such that the presence of the same limitation in the annual bill
for the previous fiscal year does not justify its inclusion in the pending
annual bill (Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406, June 26, 2000, p. 12355).
A restriction on authority to incur obligations is legislative in nature
and not a limitation on funds (July 13, 1987, p. 19507; Sept. 23, 1993,
p. 22204; July 15, 2004, pp. 15838, 15839). For example, a limitation on
the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to purchase sugar is
legislative in nature and not a limitation on funds (June 29, 2000, p. 13109).
In construing a proposed limitation, the Chair may examine whether
the purpose of the limitation is legislative. For example, a limitation accom-
panied by language stating a legislative motive or purpose is not in order
(Aug. 8, 1978, p. 24969; July 22, 1980, p. 19087; Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25604;
Sept. 22, 1981, p. 21577). Similarly, where existing law and the Constitu-
tion require a census to be taken of all persons, an amendment that seeks
to preclude the use of funds to exclude another class ‘‘known’’ to the Sec-
retary is not in order (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17156). However, language may,
by negatively refusing to include funds for all or part of an authorized
executive function, thereby affect policy and restrict executive discretion
to the extent of its denial of availability of funds (IV, 3968–3972; VII, 1583,
1653, 1694; Sept. 14, 1972, p. 30749; June 21, 1974, p. 20601; Oct. 9, 1974,
p. 34716). For example, an appropriation may be withheld from a des-
ignated object by a negative limitation on the use of funds, notwithstanding
that contracts may be left unsatisfied thereby (IV, 3987; July 10, 1975,
pp. 22006, 22007).
The Chair has stated that a limitation amendment that comprises a
textual ‘‘double-negative’’ (the coupling of a denial of an appropriation with
a negative restriction on official duties) is suspect and may result in an
affirmative direction or an affirmative statement of intent that constitutes
legislation and is therefore not in order (VII, 1690–1692; Deschler, ch. 26,
§ 51.15 (note); July 23, 2003, pp. 19250–53). In order to carry the burden
of proof on an amendment proposing a double-negative, a Member must
be able to show that the object of the double-negative is specifically con-
templated by existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19250–51, pp. 19251–53).
For example, the following have been held out of order for using a double-
negative: (1) a provision to limit funds to prohibit the obligation of funds
[862]
up to a specified amount for an unauthorized transportation project (effec-

tively authorizing an unauthorized project) (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22209); (2)
an amendment to limit funds to prohibit projects that promote the partici-
pation of women in international peace efforts, such promotion not specifi-
cally contemplated by law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19250–51); (3) an amendment
to limit funds to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission
not contemplated by existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19251–53).
It is not in order, even by language in the form of a limitation, to restrict
the discretionary authority conferred by law to administer the expenditure
of appropriated funds, such as by limiting the percentage of funds that
may be apportioned for expenditure within a certain period of time (Desch-
ler, ch. 26, § 51.23), or by precluding the obligation of certain funds until
funds provided by another Act have been obligated (Deschler, ch. 26,
§ 48.8). The burden is on the proponent to show that such a proposal does
not change existing law by restricting the timing of the expenditure of
funds rather than their availability for specified objects (Deschler, ch. 26,
§§ 64.23, 80.5).
As long as a limitation merely restricts the expenditure of Federal funds
carried in the bill without changing existing law, the limitation is in order,
even if the Federal funds in question are commingled with non-Federal
funds that would have to be accounted for separately in carrying out the
limitation (Aug. 20, 1980, p. 22171).
The fact that existing law authorizes funds to be available until expended
or without regard to fiscal year limitation does not prevent the Committee
on Appropriations from limiting their availability to the fiscal year covered
by the bill unless existing law mandates availability beyond the fiscal year
(June 25, 1974, p. 21040; see also Deschler, ch. 26, § 32). The fact that
a provision would constitute legislation for only a year does not make it
a limitation in order under the rule (IV, 3936).
A proposition to construe a law may not be admitted (IV, 3936–3938,
see § 1055, infra). Care also should be taken that the language of limitation
be not such as, when fairly construed, would change existing law (IV, 3976–
3983) or justify an executive officer in assuming an intent to change exist-
ing law (IV, 3984; VII, 1706).
Although the Committee on Appropriations may include in a general
appropriation bill language not in existing law limiting the use of funds
in the bill, if such language also constitutes an appropriation it must be
authorized by law (June 21, 1988, p. 15439). An amendment placing a
limitation on funds for activities unrelated to the functions of departments
and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane under clause 7 of rule
XVI (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).
Propositions to establish affirmative directions for executive officers (IV,
3854–3859; VII, 1443; July 31, 1969, p. 21675; June
§ 1054. New duties or
determinations; 18, 1979, p. 15286; July 1, 1987, pp. 18654, 18655; June
27, 1994, p. 14572), even in cases in which they may
executive discretion.
have discretion under the law so to do (IV, 3853; June
[863]
4, 1970, p. 18401; Aug. 8, 1978, p. 24959), or to affirmatively take away

an authority or discretion conferred by law (IV, 3862, 3863; VII, 1975;
Mar. 30, 1955, p. 4065; June 21, 1974, p. 20600; July 31, 1985, p. 21909),
are subject to a point of order.
A limitation may not: (1) be applied directly to the official functions of
executive officers (IV, 3957–3966; VII, 1673, 1678, 1685); (2) directly inter-
fere with discretionary authority in law by establishing a level of funding
below which expenditures may not be made (VII, 1704; July 20, 1978, p.
21856); (3) require a judgment as to whether racial imbalance had been
overcome (July 31, 1969, pp. 21653, 21675); (4) condition the availability
of funds or the exercise of contract authority upon an interpretation of
local law where that interpretation is not required by existing law (July
17, 1981, p. 16327); (5) require new determinations of full Federal compli-
ance with mandates imposed upon States (July 22, 1981, p. 16829); (6)
require the evaluation of the theoretical basis of a program (July 22, 1981,
p. 16822); (7) require new determinations of propriety or effectiveness (Oct.
6, 1981, p. 23361; May 25, 1988, p. 12275), or satisfactory quality (Aug.
1, 1986, p. 18647); (8) incorporate by reference determinations already
made in administrative processes not affecting programs funded by the
bill (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361); (9) require new determinations of rates of
interest payable (July 29, 1982, p. 18624; Dec. 9, 1982, p. 29691); (10)
require a determination of whether the Office of Management and Budget
interfered with the rulemaking authority of a regulatory agency (Nov. 30,
1982, p. 28062); (11) authorize the President to reduce each appropriation
in the bill by not more than 10 percent (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June
6, 1984, p. 15120); (12) apply standards of conduct to foreign entities where
existing law requires such conduct only by domestic entities (July 17, 1986,
p. 16951); (13) require the enforcement of a standard where existing law
only requires inspection of an area (July 30, 1986, p. 18189); (14) prohibit
the availability of funds for the purchase of ‘‘nondomestic’’ goods and serv-
ices (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178); (15) mandate contractual provisions (May
18, 1988, p. 11389); (16) authorize the adjustment of wages of Government
employees (June 21, 1988, p. 15451; Apr. 26, 1989, p. 7525) or permit an
increase in Members’ office allowances only ‘‘if requested in writing’’ (Oct.
21, 1990, p. 31708); (17) convert an existing legal prerequisite for the
issuance of a regulatory permit into a prerequisite for even the preliminary
processing of such a permit (July 22, 1992, p. 18825); (18) mandate reduc-
tions in various appropriations by a variable percentage calculated in rela-
tion to ‘‘overhead’’ (Deschler, ch. 26, § 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. 16110); (19)
require an agency to investigate and determine whether private airports
are collecting certain fees for each enplaning passenger (Sept. 23, 1993,
p. 22213); (20) require an agency to investigate and determine whether
a person or entity entering into a contract with funds under the pending
bill is subject to a legal proceeding commenced by the Federal Government
and alleging fraud (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19045); (21) require an agency to
determine whether building services are ‘‘usually’’ provided through the
[864]
Federal Building Fund to an agency not paying a level of assessment speci-

fied elsewhere (and not necessarily applicable) (July 16, 1998, p. 15816);
(22) require a determination of ‘‘successor agency’’ status (Sept. 26, 1997,
p. 20347); (23) require a determination whether a delegate or envoy to
the United Nations has ‘‘advocated’’ the adoption of a certain convention
(June 26, 2000, p. 12355); (24) require tests or reports not required under
existing law (May 19, 2000, p. 8616) or require all quarterly and annual
reports required by law in accordance with standards for reports under
a specified law not otherwise applicable (Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21548, 21549);
(25) impose a new duty to tally violations of law by contractors where
existing law required information on violations but not on the number
thereof (June 7, 2000, p. 9849); (26) require an investigation of the conscrip-
tion requirements of other nations (July 13, 2000, p. 14121); (27) require
a determination whether ‘‘efforts’’ have been made to change any nation’s
laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control (July 13,
2000, p. 14130); (28) impose a new duty to calculate the ‘‘total amount’’
of payments under a Federal program paid to a husband and wife (to deter-
mine whether an exception to an otherwise valid limitation would apply)
(July 11, 2001, pp. 13001–03); (29) require an investigation into the extent
to which World Trade Organization challenges against foreign laws and
policies promote access to certain pharmaceuticals (July 18, 2001, pp.
13693, 13694); (30) require an investigation into whether an applicant for
immigration has been involved in the harvesting of organs (July 18, 2001,
pp. 13702–05); (31) require the Inspector General to opine on audited finan-
cial statements of certain components of the Department of Defense where
the issuance of such opinion was not shown to be required by existing
law (June 27, 2002, pp. 11788, 11789); (32) require the examination of
certain legislative reports to determine whether an entity is specifically
identified by name (July 17, 2002, pp. 13365, 13366); (33) require several
agencies to process certain information where current law required only
one specific agency to process that information (June 24, 2003, pp. 15860,
15861); (34) in the case of a limitation with respect to certain roads on
public land, require a determination of the precise nature of those roads
including their ownership and the types of vehicles allowed to travel on
them (July 17, 2003, pp. 18628–31); (35) require a determination that cer-
tain trade agreements achieved generic undefined policy goals that were
not set forth in existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19156–58); (36) require
a determination that a drug has been prescribed ‘‘for the purpose of reliev-
ing or managing pain’’ (July 7, 2004, pp. 14679, 14682); (37) require a
determination as to the date on which various road construction projects
in a National Forest were commenced within the periods in which they
were authorized to commence (May 19, 2005, pp. 10364, 10365); (38) re-
quire the Food and Drug Administration to examine a registry of clinical
trials maintained by the National Institutes of Health, a different entity
(June 8, 2005, pp. 11945, 11946) or require the administrator of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program to determine whether a federal
[865]
prohibition on certain mineral exploration (administered by a different fed-

eral entity) remained in effect (Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3722); (39) require a deter-
mination regarding a specific type of employment behavior before initiating
an employment investigation (June 8, 2005, pp. 11948–50); (40) require
a determination as to whether a local educational agency had obtained
parental consent before providing military recruiters student information
(June 24, 2005, pp. 14185, 14186); (41) in the case of a limitation on the
enforcement of a regulation against a specified class, require a determina-
tion as to whether a person is a member of that class (June 30, 2005,
pp. 14891–93); (42) prescribe a policy for an agency in the distribution
of grants (June 6, 2006, pp. 10105, 10106); (43) require a determination
of citizenship based on birth (June 6, 2006, pp. 10108, 10109); (44) require
a determination of what activities tend to ‘‘continue’’ specified litigation
(Feb. 18, 2011, p. l).
The fact that an executive official may have been directed by an Execu-
tive Order to consult another executive official before taking an action
does not permit inclusion of language directing the official being consulted
to make determinations not specifically required by law (July 22, 1980,
p. 19087).
On the other hand, the following limitations have been held in order
as not placing new duties on Federal officials: (1) denying the use of funds
to pay the salaries of Federal officials who perform certain functions under
existing law if the description of those duties precisely follows existing
law and does not require them to perform new duties (June 24, 1976, p.
20373); (2) denying the use of funds to a Federal official not in compliance
with an existing law that such official is charged with enforcing (Sept.
10, 1981, p. 20110); (3) reducing the availability of funds for trade adjust-
ment assistance by amounts of unemployment insurance entitlements
where the law establishing trade adjustment assistance already required
the disbursing agency to take into consideration levels of unemployment
insurance in determining payment levels (June 18, 1980, p. 15355); (4)
denying the use of funds to carry out (or pay the salaries of persons who
carry out) tobacco crop and insurance programs (July 20, 1995, p. 19798);
(5) denying the use of funds for any transit project exceeding a specified
cost-effectiveness index where the Chair was persuaded that the limitation
applied to projects for which indexes were already required by law (Sept.
23, 1993, p. 22206); (6) denying the use of funds to enforce FAA regulations
to require domestic air carriers to surrender more than a specified number
of ‘‘slots’’ at a given airport in preference of international air carriers where
the Chair was persuaded that existing regulations already required the
FAA to determine the origin of withdrawn slots (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22212);
(7) denying the use of funds for troops ‘‘except in time of war’’ (Deschler,
ch. 26, § 70.1) or ‘‘except in time of emergency’’ (VII, 1657, which was the
basis for the preceding ruling); (8) denying the use of funds to implement
any sanction imposed by the United States on private commercial sales
of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical supplies to Cuba except
[866]
for a sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other coun-
tries (July 20, 2000, p. 15751); (9) denying the use of funds by the Forest
Service to construct roads or prepare timber sales in certain roadless areas
where the executive was already charged by law with ongoing responsi-
bility to maintain a comprehensive and detailed inventory of all land and
renewable resources of the National Forest System (July 18, 1995, p.
19357) or for the plan, design, study, or construction of roads in a specified
forest for the purpose of private timber harvest (June 26, 2007, p. 17521
0923) unless also requiring a determination of the date a given road project
commenced (May 19, 2005, pp. 10364, 10365); (10) denying the use of funds
to eliminate an existing legal requirement for sureties on custom bonds
(June 27, 1984, p. 19101); (11) denying the use of funds by any Federal
official in any manner that would prevent a provision of existing law (relat-
ing to import restrictions) from being enforced (June 27, 1984, p. 19101);
(12) denying the use of funds for any reduction in the number of Customs
Service regions or for any consolidation of Customs Service offices (June
27, 1984, p. 19102); (13) denying the use of funds for specified Federal
departments to file certain motions in specified civil actions (all matters
of public record in the litigation and therefore available to responsible in-
tervening Federal officials) (July 18, 2001, pp. 13683, 13684); (14) denying
the use of funds in contravention of a cited statute (May 17, 2005, pp.
9993, 9994; June 6, 2006, pp. 10106, 10107).
A paragraph prohibiting the use of funds to perform abortions except
where the mother’s life would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term (or where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest) is legislation,
because requiring Federal officials to make new determinations and judg-
ments not required of them by law, regardless of whether private or State
officials administering the funds in question commonly make such deter-
minations (June 17, 1977, p. 1969; June 30, 1993, p. 14871; July 16, 1998,
p. 15828). The fact that such a provision relating to abortion funding may
have been included in appropriation Acts in prior years applicable to funds
in those laws does not permit the inclusion of similar language requiring
such determinations, not required by law, with respect to funds for the
fiscal year in question (Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25406); and where the provision,
applicable to Federal funds, was permitted to remain in a bill (no point
of order having been made), an amendment striking the word ‘‘Federal,’’
and thereby broadening the provision to include District of Columbia funds
as well, was ruled out (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29004; July 16, 2009, p. l). How-
ever, to such a provision permitted to remain in a general appropriation
bill, an amendment ‘‘merely perfecting’’ the exemption to address cases
in which the health of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term was held not to constitute further legislation by requiring
a different or more onerous determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113). An
amendment providing that no Federal funds provided in the District of
Columbia general appropriation bill be used to perform abortions is not
legislation, because Federal officials have the responsibility to account for
[867]
all appropriations for the annual Federal payment and for disbursement
of all taxes collected by the District of Columbia, pursuant to the D.C.
Code (July 17, 1979, p. 19066).
An exception to a limitation on funds for the Office of Personnel Manage-
ment to enter contracts for health benefit plans that required determina-
tions of ‘‘equivalence’’ of benefits was held to impose new duties (July 16,
1998, p. 15829). However, an exception to a similar limitation that merely
excepted certain specified coverage and plans was held not to impose new
duties (July 16, 1998, p. 15841). Similarly, a limitation denying the use
of funds in an appropriation bill for the General Services Administration
to dispose of Federally owned ‘‘agricultural’’ land declared surplus was
held to impose new duties because the determination whether surplus
lands are ‘‘agricultural’’ was not required by law (Aug. 20, 1980, pp. 22156–
58). However, a limitation denying the use of funds for any transit project
exceeding a specified cost-effectiveness index was held not to impose new
duties where the Chair was persuaded that the limitation applied to
projects for which indexes were already required by law (Sept. 23, 1993,
p. 22206).
Over a period dating from 1908, the House had developed a line of prece-
dent to the effect that language restricting the availability of funds in
a general appropriation bill could be a valid limitation if, rather than im-
posing new duties on a disbursing official or requiring new determinations
of that official, it passively addressed the state of knowledge of the official
(VII, 1695; cf. Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17156, and June 22, 1995, p. 16844 (limita-
tions in recommittal ruled out on basis of form rather than of legislative
content)). This reasoning culminated in a ruling in the 104th Congress
admitting as a valid limitation an amendment prohibiting the use of funds
in the bill to execute certain accounting transactions when specified condi-
tions were ‘‘made known’’ to the disbursing official (July 17, 1996, p. 17542).
In the 105th Congress this entire line of precedent was overtaken by
changes in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this clause that treat as legislation
a provision that makes funding contingent on whether circumstances not
determinative under existing law are ‘‘known’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121; July 15, 1997, p. 14493; July 24, 1997, p. 15758).
An amendment making an appropriation contingent upon a rec-
ommendation (June 27, 1979, p. 17054) or action not
§ 1055. Contingencies
and congressional specifically required by law is legislation; such as a pro-
actions. vision limiting the use of funds in a bill ‘‘unless’’ or
‘‘until’’ an action contrary to existing law is taken
(Deschler, ch. 26, § 47.1; July 24, 1996, p. 18888). Where existing law re-
quires an agency to furnish certain information to congressional commit-
tees upon request, without a subpoena, it is not in order to make funding
for that agency contingent upon its furnishing information to subcommit-
tees upon request (July 30, 1980, p. 20475), or contingent upon submission
of an agreement by a Federal official to Congress and congressional review
thereof (July 31, 1986, p. 18370). Similarly, it is not in order to condition
[868]
funds on legal determinations to be made by a Federal court and an execu-

tive department (June 28, 1988, p. 16261; see Deschler, ch. 26, § 47.2).
Provisions making the availability of funds contingent upon subsequent
congressional action have, under the most recent precedents, been ruled
out as legislation (June 30, 1942, p. 5826; May 15, 1947, p. 5378; June
27, 1994, p. 14613). However, a limitation on the use of funds to buy real
estate or establish new offices except where Congress had approved and
funded such activity (June 18, 1991, p. 15218) was held in order.
The following provisions have been ruled out as legislation: (1) making
the availability of certain funds contingent upon subsequent congressional
action on legislative proposals resolving the policy issue (Nov. 18, 1981,
p. 28064); (2) making the availability of funds contingent upon subsequent
enactment of legislation containing specified findings (Nov. 2, 1983, p.
30503); (3) making the availability of funding in the bill contingent on
the funding of a separate provision of law (Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3713); and
(4) changing a permanent appropriation in existing law to restrict its avail-
ability until all general appropriation bills are presented to the President
(June 29, 1987, p. 18083). A section in a general appropriation bill directly
contravening existing law to subject the use of local funds to congressional
approval was held to constitute legislation where it was shown that some
local (District of Columbia) funds deriving from interest accounts were
available to the Financial Control Board without subsequent congressional
approval (Aug. 6, 1998, p. 19079).
Two rulings upholding the admissibility of amendments making the
availability of funds contingent upon subsequent congressional action have
been superseded by the precedents cited above (June 11, 1968, p. 16692;
Sept. 6, 1979, p. 23360).
The following provisions also have been held to be legislation as they
required: (1) a congressional committee to promulgate regulations to limit
the use of an appropriation (June 13, 1979, p. 14670), or otherwise to direct
the activities of a committee (June 24, 1992, p. 16087); (2) a substantive
determination by a State or local government official or agency that is
not otherwise required by existing law (July 25, 1985, p. 20569); (3) the
Selective Service Administration to issue regulations to bring its classifica-
tions into conformance with a Supreme Court decision (July 20, 1989, p.
15405); (4) a change in a rule of the House (IV, 3819); (5) an agency to
submit all quarterly and annual reports required by law in accordance
with standards for reports under a specified law not otherwise applicable
(Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21548); (6) compliance with a law not otherwise applicable
(Sept. 4, 2003, p. 21213).
A provision proposing to construe existing law is itself legislative and
§ 1056. Construing or
therefore not in order (IV, 3936–3938; May 2, 1951, p.
amending existing 4747; July 26, 1951, p. 8982). However, an official’s gen-
law. eral responsibility to construe the language of a limita-
tion on the use of funds, absent imposition of an affirm-
[869]
ative direction not required by law, does not destroy the validity of a limita-
tion (June 27, 1974, pp. 21687–94).
Where it is asserted that duties ostensibly occasioned by a limitation
are already imposed by existing law, the Chair may take cognizance of
judicial decisions and rule the limitation out on the basis that the case
law is not uniform, current, or finally dispositive (June 16, 1977, pp. 19365–
74; June 7, 1978, p. 16676). For example, a limitation prohibiting the use
of funds for an inspection conducted by a regulatory agency without a
search warrant has been held out of order as imposing a new duty not
uniformly required by case law (June 16, 1977, pp. 19365–74). Similarly,
an amendment denying the use of funds for an agency to apply certain
provisions of law under court decisions in effect on a prior date has been
held out of order as requiring the official to apply noncurrent case law
(June 7, 1978, p. 16655).
A provision prescribing a rule of construction is legislation (Deschler,
ch. 26, § 25.15). For example, a provision prescribing a prospective rule
of construction for possible (future) tax enactments was held to constitute
legislation (June 21, 2000, p. 11773). Similarly, a provision construing a
limitation in a bill by affirmatively declaring the meaning of the prohibition
is legislation (May 17, 1988, p. 11305); and a provision prescribing defini-
tions for terms contained in a limitation may be legislation (Deschler, ch.
26, §§ 25.7, 25.11). Language excepting certain appropriations from the
sweep of a broader limitation may be in order (Deschler, ch. 26, § 25.2).
It also has been held in order to except from the operation of a specific
limitation on expenditures certain of those expenditures that are author-
ized by law by prohibiting a construction of the limitation in a way that
would prevent compliance with that law (Deschler, ch. 26, § 25.10; June
18, 1991, p. 15218). Similarly, a limitation on certain payments to persons
in ‘‘excess of $500,’’ but stating that the limitation would not be ‘‘construed
to deprive any share renter of payments’’ to which the renter might other-
wise be entitled was held in order (Deschler, ch. 26, § 66.1).
The mere recitation in an amendment that a determination is to be made
pursuant to existing laws and regulations, absent a citation to the law
imposing such responsibility, is not sufficient proof by the proponent of
an amendment to overcome a point of order that the amendment con-
stitutes legislation (Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25606; May 8, 1986, p. 10156). A
limitation denying the use of funds to apply certain provisions of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code other than under regulations in effect on a prior date
is legislation as it would require an official to apply regulations no longer
current in order to render an appropriation available (June 7, 1978, p.
16655; Aug. 19, 1980, pp. 21978–80). However, an exception to a limitation
on the use of funds for designated Federal activities that were already
authorized by law in more general terms, was held in order as not con-
taining legislation (June 27, 1979, pp. 17033–35).
Language waiving provisions of an existing law that did not specifically
permit inclusion of such a waiver in an appropriation bill has been ruled
[870]
out (e.g., Nov. 13, 1975, p. 36271; June 20, 1996, p. 14847; May 19, 2000,
p. 8600), as has language identical to that contained in an authorization
bill previously passed by the House but not yet signed into law (Aug. 4,
1978, p. 24436), or a proposition for repeal of existing law (VII, 1403; Mar.
16, 2006, pp. 3786 0988 (sustained on appeal)).
Existing law may be repeated verbatim without violating the rule (IV,
3814, 3815), but the slightest change of the text renders it liable to a point
of order (IV, 3817; VII, 1391, 1394; June 4, 1970, p. 18405). It is in order
to include language descriptive of authority provided in law for the oper-
ation of Government agencies and corporations so long as the description
is precise and does not change that authority in any respect (June 15,
1973, p. 19843; Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24249); although language merely reciting
the applicability of current law to the use of earmarked funds is permitted,
a provision that elevates existing guidelines to mandates for spending has
been ruled out (July 12, 1989, p. 14432).
It is in order by way of limitation to deny the use of funds for implementa-
tion of the following: (1) an Executive Order, which was precisely described
in the amendment (Mar. 16, 1977, p. 7748); (2) a regulation, which was
promulgated pursuant to court order and constitutional provisions—the
authority for the regulation being an argument on the merits of the amend-
ment and not rendering it legislative in nature (Aug. 19, 1980, pp. 21981–
84); (3) a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service that taxpayers are not
entitled to certain charitable deductions because merely descriptive of an
existing ruling already promulgated and not requiring any new determina-
tions as to the applicability of the limitation to other categories of taxpayers
(July 16, 1979, pp. 18808–10); (4) changes to a set of overtime compensation
regulations in existence on a given date (with a certain nonlegislative ex-
ception) because they did not require the Department to administer super-
seded regulations (Sept. 9, 2004, pp. 17853, 17854).
An amendment proposing to increase budget authority and to offset that
increase by proposing a change in the application of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 was held to constitute legislation (see, e.g., Sept. 8, 1999,
pp. 20896–98; June 24, 2003, p. 15831 (sustained on appeal); July 10, 2003,
p. 17535, p. 17576).
A provision that mandates a distribution of funds in contravention of
an allocation formula in existing law is legislation (July
§ 1057. Mandating
expenditures. 29, 1982, pp. 18637, 18638; Oct. 5, 1983, p. 27335; Aug.
2, 1989, p. 18123; July 24, 1995, p. 20141), as is an
amendment that by such a mandate interferes with an executive official’s
discretionary authority (Mar. 12, 1975, p. 6338), or requires not less than
a certain sum to be used for a particular purpose where existing law does
not mandate such expenditure (June 18, 1976, p. 19297; July 29, 1982,
p. 18623) (including by stating that not less than a certain sum ‘‘should
be allocated’’ (June 9, 2006, p. 10673)), or earmarks appropriated funds
to the arts and requires their expenditure pursuant to standards otherwise
applicable only as guidelines (July 12, 1989, p. 14432). Where existing
[871]
law directed a Federal official to provide for sale of certain Government

property to a private organization in ‘‘necessary’’ amounts, an amendment
providing that no such property be withheld from distribution from quali-
fying purchasers was legislation, because requiring disposal of all property
and restricting discretionary authority to determine ‘‘necessary’’ amounts
(Aug. 7, 1978, p. 24707). An amendment directing the use of funds to assure
compliance with an existing law, where existing law does not so mandate,
also is legislation (June 24, 1976, p. 20370). So-called ‘‘hold-harmless’’ pro-
visions that mandate a certain level of expenditure for certain purposes
or recipients, where existing law confers discretion or makes ratable reduc-
tions in such expenditures, also constitute legislation (Apr. 16, 1975, p.
10357; June 25, 1976, p. 20557). A transfer of available funds from one
department to another with directions as to the use to which those funds
must be put is legislation (and also a reappropriation in violation of clause
2(a)(2) of this rule) (Dec. 8, 1982, p. 29449). A provision requiring States
to match funds provided in an appropriation bill was held to constitute
legislation where existing law contained no such requirement (June 28,
1993, p. 14418). Where existing law prescribes a formula for the allocation
of funds among several categories, an amendment merely reducing the
amount earmarked for one of the categories is not legislation, so long as
it does not textually change the statutory formula (July 24, 1995, p. 20133).
The House may, by agreeing to a report from the Committee on Rules
or by adopting an order under suspension of the rules,
§ 1058. Waivers;
amending legislation allow legislation on general appropriation bills (IV,
permitted to remain. 3260–3263, 3839–3845). Where an unauthorized appro-
priation or legislation is permitted to remain in a gen-
eral appropriation bill by waiver or by failure to raise a point of order,
an amendment merely changing that amount and not adding legislative
language or earmarking separate funds for another unauthorized purpose
is in order (IV, 3823–3835, 3838; VII, 1405, 1413–1415; June 9, 1954, p.
5963; July 27, 1954, p. 12287; Oct. 1, 1975, p. 31058; June 8, 1977, p.
17941; July 17, 1985, p. 19435; Sept. 11, 1985, p. 23398; June 14, 1988,
p. 14341). However, this does not permit an amendment that adds addi-
tional legislation (IV, 3836, 3837, 3862; VII, 1402–1436; Dec. 9, 1971, p.
4595; Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27291; June 10, 1977, p. 1802; July 30, 1985, p.
21532; July 23, 1986, p. 17446; June 26, 1987, p. 17655; June 28, 1988,
pp. 16203, 16213; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18172; Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29004; June
23, 1998, p. 13475; July 13, 2000, p. 14093; June 26, 2007, pp. 17485,
17486), proposes a new unauthorized purpose (Dec. 8, 1971, p. 45487; Aug.
7, 1978, pp. 24710–12; May 25, 1988, p. 12256), earmarks for unauthorized
purposes (July 17, 1985, p. 19435; July 17, 1986, p. 16918; July 26, 1995,
p. 20528; June 5, 1996, p. 13120), earmarks by directing a new use of
funds not required by law (July 26, 1985, pp. 20811, 20813), or increases
an authorized amount above the authorized ceiling (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513).
An amendment adding a new paragraph indirectly increasing an unau-
thorized amount contained in a prior paragraph permitted to remain is
[872]
subject to a point of order because the new paragraph is adding a further

unauthorized amount not merely perfecting (July 12, 1995, p. 18628; July
16, 1997, p. 14746; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20818; June 27, 2007, pp. 17715,
17716). However, a new paragraph indirectly reducing an unauthorized
amount permitted to remain in a prior paragraph passed in the reading
is not subject to a point of order because it is not adding a further unauthor-
ized amount (July 16, 1997, p. 14747). Where by unanimous consent an
amendment is offered en bloc to a paragraph containing an unauthorized
amount not yet read for amendment, the amendment increasing that unau-
thorized figure is subject to a point of order because at that point it is
not being offered to a paragraph that has been read and permitted to re-
main (June 21, 1984, p. 17687). As required by clause 2(f), the Chair will
query for points of order against the provisions of an appropriation bill
not yet reached in the reading but addressed by an amendment offered
en bloc under that clause as budget authority and outlay neutral (July
22, 1997, p. 15250).
The Chair examined an entire legislative provision permitted to remain
when ruling that an amendment to a portion of the provision was merely
perfecting (July 15, 1999, pp. 16284, 16291). An amendment to a general
appropriation bill is not subject to a point of order as adding legislation
for restating, verbatim, a legislative provision already contained in the
bill and permitted to remain (Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23519).
The following amendments to legislative provisions permitted to remain
have been held to propose additional legislation: (1) adding another class
to those on which assistance is conferred (June 22, 1983, p. 16851); (2)
striking text that resulted in extending the legislative reach of the pending
bill (July 17, 1996, p. 17533); (3) extending a legislative provision that
placed certain restrictions on recipients of a defined set of Federal pay-
ments and benefits to persons benefiting from a certain tax status deter-
mined on wholly unrelated criteria (Aug. 3, 1995, p. 21967); (4) adding
an additional nation to a legislative provision addressing sanctions against
one nation (July 13, 2000, p. 14092); (5) extending the availability of certain
housing assistance to certain recipients (June 13, 2006, pp. 11041, 11042);
(6) specifying a different regulation required to be reissued by an agency
(Feb. 16, 2011, p. l); (7) adding a rule of construction regarding the imple-
mentation of a provision of law (as opposed to merely excepting that provi-
sion from the coverage of a legislative limitation on funds) (Feb. 16, 2011,
p. l).
On the other hand, to a legislative provision permitted to remain, an
amendment particularizing a definition in the language was held not to
constitute additional legislation where it was shown that the definition
being amended already contemplated inclusion of the covered class (Aug.
5, 1998, p. 18934). To a legislative provision permitted to remain that ex-
cepted from a denial of funds for abortions cases in which the life of the
mother would be endangered if a fetus were carried to term, an amendment
excepting instead cases in which the health of the mother would be endan-
[873]
gered if the fetus were carried to term was held not to constitute further
legislation, because determinations on the endangerment of life necessarily
subsume determinations on the endangerment of health; and the amend-
ment did not therefore require any different or more onerous determina-
tions (June 27, 1984, p. 19113).
To a paragraph permitted to remain despite containing a legislative pro-
viso restricting the obligation of funds until a date within the fiscal year,
an amendment striking the delimiting date, thus applying the restriction
for the entire year, was held to be perfecting (July 30, 1990, p. 20442);
but striking the date and inserting a new trigger (the enactment of other
legislation), was held to be additional legislation (July 30, 1990, p. 20442).
The principle seems to be generally well accepted that the House pro-
§ 1059. Senate
posing legislation on a general appropriation bill should
amendments. recede if the other House persists in its objection (IV,
3904–3908), and clause 5 of rule XXII (§ 1076, infra)
prohibits House conferees from agreeing to a Senate amendment that pro-
poses legislation on an appropriation bill without specific authority from
the House. However, where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on
a general appropriation bill is, pursuant to the edict of clause 5 of rule
XXII, reported back from conference in disagreement, a motion to concur
in the Senate amendment with a further amendment is in order, even
if the proposed amendment adds legislation to that contained in the Senate
amendment, and the only test is whether the proposed amendment is ger-
mane to the Senate amendment reported in disagreement (IV, 3909; VIII,
3188, 3189; Speaker McCormack, Dec. 15, 1970, p. 41504; Aug. 1, 1979,
pp. 22007–11; Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, p. 35520; June 30, 1987,
p. 18308).
‘‘HOLMAN RULE’’ ON RETRENCHING EXPENDITURES
Decisions under the so-called ‘‘Holman Rule’’ in clause 2 of rule XXI

§ 1062. Legislation
have been rare in the modern practice of the House.
reducing The trend in construing language in general appropria-
expenditures. tion bills or amendments thereto has been to minimize
the importance of the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ in those cases in
which the decision can be made on other grounds. The practice of using
limitations in appropriation bills has been perfected in recent years so
that most modern decisions by the Chair deal with distinctions between
such limitations and matters that are considered to be legislation (see
§§ 1053–1057, supra). Under the modern practice, the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ only
applies where an obvious reduction is achieved by the provision in question
and does not apply to limiting language unaccompanied by a reduction
of funds in the bill (July 16, 1979, pp. 18808–10). It has no application
to an amendment to an appropriation bill that does not legislate but is
merely a negative limitation citing but not changing existing law (June
18, 1980, p. 15355).
[874]
A paragraph containing legislation reported in an appropriation bill to

be in order must on its face show a retrenchment of a type that conforms
to the requirements of the rule (Mar. 17, 1926, p. 5804).
The reduction of expenditure must appear as a necessary result, in order
to bring an amendment or provision within the exception to the rule. It
is not sufficient that such reduction would probably, or would in the opinion
of the Chair, result therefrom (IV, 3887; VII, 1530–1534). Thus, an amend-
ment to a general appropriation bill providing that appropriations made
in that act are hereby reduced by $7 billion, though legislative in form,
was held in order under the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ exception (Apr. 5, 1966, p.
7689), but an amendment providing for certain reductions of appropriations
carried in the bill based on the President’s budget estimates was held not
to show a reduction on its face and to provide merely speculative reductions
(Deschler, ch. 26, § 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. 16110). An amendment author-
izing the President to reduce each appropriation in the bill by not more
than 10 percent was ruled out as legislation conferring new authority on
the President (May 31, 1984, p. 14617; June 6, 1984, p. 15120). An amend-
ment reducing an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a general
appropriation bill is in order as a retrenchment under this clause (Oct.
1, 1975, p. 31058). An amendment to a general appropriation bill denying
the availability of funds to certain recipients but requiring Federal officials
to make additional determinations as to the qualifications of recipients
is legislation and is not a retrenchment of expenditures where it is not
apparent that the prohibition will reduce the amounts covered by the bill
(June 26, 1973, p. 21389).
The amendment must not only show on its face an attempt to retrench
but also must be germane to some provision in the bill even though offered
by direction of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter of
the amendment (VII, 1549; Dec. 16, 1911, p. 442). An amendment providing
that appropriations ‘‘herein and heretofore made’’ shall be reduced by $70
million through the reduction of Federal employees as the President deter-
mines was held to be legislative and not germane to the bill, because it
went to funds other than those carried therein, and was therefore not with-
in the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ exception (Oct. 18, 1966, p. 27425).
An amendment reducing an amount in an appropriation bill for the Post-
al Service and prohibiting the use of funds therein to implement special
bulk third-class rates for political committees was held in order because
not specifically requiring a new determination and because constituting
a retrenchment of expenditures even if assumed to be legislative (July
13, 1979, pp. 18453–55).
As long as an amendment calls for an obvious reduction at some point
in time during the fiscal year, the amendment is in order under the ‘‘Hol-
man Rule’’ even if the reduction takes place in the future in an amount
actually determined when the reduction takes place (for example, by for-
mula) (VII, 1491, 1505; July 30, 1980, pp. 20499–20503). To an amendment
that is in order under the ‘‘Holman Rule,’’ containing legislation but re-
[875]
trenching expenditures by formula for every agency funded by the bill,

an amendment exempting from that reduction several specific programs
does not add further legislation and is in order (July 30, 1980, pp. 20499–
20503).
A motion to recommit the District of Columbia appropriation bill with
instructions to reduce the proportion of the fund appropriated from the
Federal Treasury from one-half, as provided in the bill, to one-fourth of
the entire appropriation is in order, because the effect of the amendment
if adopted would reduce the expenditure of public money although not re-
ducing the amount of the appropriation (VII, 1518).
The term ‘‘retrenchment’’ means the reduction of the amount of money
to be taken out of the Federal Treasury by the bill, and therefore a reduc-
tion of the amount of money to be contributed toward the expenses of
the District of Columbia is in order as a retrenchment (VII, 1502).
An amendment proposed to an item for the recoinage of uncurrent frac-
tional silver, which amendment struck out the amount appropriated and
added a provision for the coinage of all the bullion in the Treasury into
standard silver dollars, the cost of such coinage and recoinage to be paid
out of the Government’s seigniorage, was held not to be in order under
the rule; first, because not germane to the subject matter of the bill (the
sundry civil); second, because it did not appear that any retrenchment
of expenditure would result, the seigniorage being the property of the Gov-
ernment as other funds in the Treasury (VII, 1547).
To an item of appropriation for inland transportation of mails by star
routes an amendment was offered requiring the Postmaster General to
provide routes and make contracts in certain cases, with the further provi-
sion ‘‘and the amount of appropriation herein for star routes is hereby
reduced to $500.’’ A point of order made against the first or legislative
part of the amendment was sustained, which decision was, on appeal, af-
firmed by the committee (VII, 1555).
To a clause appropriating for the foreign mail service an amendment
reducing the appropriation, and in addition repealing the act known as
the ‘‘subsidy act,’’ was held not in order because the repealing of this act
was not germane to the appropriation bill; and that to be in order both
branches of the amendment must be germane to the bill (VII, 1548).
A provision in the agricultural appropriation bill transferring the super-
vision of the importation of animals from the Treasury to the Department
of Agriculture is out of order, being a provision changing law and not re-
trenching expenditure (IV, 3886).
Where a paragraph containing new legislation provides in one part for
a discharge of employees, which means a retrenchment, and in another
part embodies legislation to bring about the particular retrenchment that
in turn shows on its face an expenditure the amount of which is not appar-
ent, the Chair is unable to hold that the net result will retrench expendi-
tures. However, where the additional legislation does not show on its face
[876]
an additional expenditure, the Chair will not speculate as to a possible

expenditure under the additional legislation (VII, 1500).
As explained in the annotation in § 1043, supra, the amendment of clause
2(b) in the 98th Congress narrowed the ‘‘Holman Rule’’ exception to the
general prohibition against legislation to cover only retrenchments reduc-
ing amounts of money covered by the bill, and not retrenchments resulting
from reduction of the number and salary of officers of the United States
or of the compensation of any person paid out of the U.S. Treasury. Accord-
ingly, the Chair held out of order an amendment mandating the reduction
of certain Federal salaries and expenses as not confined to a reduction
of funds in the bill (June 17, 1994, p. 13422). Paragraph (b) also eliminated
separate authority conferred upon legislative committees or commissions
with proper jurisdiction to report amendments retrenching expenditures,
and permitted legislative committees to recommend such retrenchments
by reduction of amounts covered by the bill to the Appropriations Com-
mittee for discretionary inclusion in the reported bill. Paragraph (d) as
added in the 98th Congress provides a new procedure for consideration
of all retrenchment amendments only when reading of the bill has been
completed and only if the Committee of the Whole does not adopt a motion
to rise and report the bill back to the House. Other decisions that involved
interpretation of the ‘‘Holman Rule,’’ but which do not reflect the current
form or interpretation of that rule, are found in IV, 3846, 3885–3892; VII,
1484, 1486–1492, 1498, 1500, 1515, 1563, 1564, 1569; June 1, 1892, p.
4920.
This provision from section 139(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190f(c)) was made part of the standing
§ 1063.
Reappropriations. rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24). Pre-
viously, a reappropriation of an unexpended balance
for an object authorized by law was in order on a general appropriation
bill (IV, 3591, 3592; VII, 1156, 1158). This clause was amended in the
99th Congress by section 228(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–177) to permit the Committee on Ap-
propriations to report certain transfers of unexpended balances. Consistent
with clause 2 of rule XXI, and as codified in the 106th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), violations of this clause are enforced only against
specific provisions in general appropriation bills containing reappropri-
ations rather than against consideration of the bill (see Deschler, ch. 25,
§ 3).
A provision in a general appropriation bill, or an amendment thereto,
providing that funds for a certain purpose are to be derived by continuing
the availability of funds previously appropriated for a prior fiscal year is
in violation of clause 2(a)(2) (formerly clause 6 of rule XXI) (Aug. 20, 1951,
p. 10393; Mar. 29, 1960, p. 6862; June 17, 1960, p. 13138; June 20, 1973,
p. 20530; July 29, 1982, p. 18625; June 28, 1988, p. 16255), and a reappro-
priation of unexpended prior year balances prohibited by this clause is
not in order under the guise of a ‘‘Holman Rule’’ exception to clause 2
[877]
§ 1063a Rule XXI, clause 2
of rule XXI (Oct. 18, 1966, p. 27424). An amendment to a general appropria-

tion bill making any appropriations that are available for the current fiscal
year available for certain new purposes was held out of order under clause
2(a)(2) because it was not confined to the funds in the bill and would permit
reappropriation of unexpended balances (Oct. 1, 1975, p. 31090). That ap-
propriations may be authorized in law for a specified object does not permit
an amendment to a general appropriation bill to include legislative lan-
guage mandating the reappropriation of funds from other Acts (July 28,
1992, p. 19652).
This rule, however, is not applicable when the reappropriation language
is identical to legislative authorization language enacted subsequent to
the adoption of the rule, because the law is a more recent expression of
the will of the House (Sept. 5, 1961, p. 18133), nor when a measure transfer-
ring unobligated balances of previously appropriated funds contains legis-
lative provisions and rules changes but no appropriation of new budget
authority and is neither in the form of an appropriation bill nor the subject
of a privileged report by the Committee on Appropriations under rule XIII
(Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3239).
The return of an unexpended balance to the Treasury is in order (IV,
3594).
A provision in a general appropriation bill that authorizes an official
to transfer funds among appropriation accounts in the bill changes existing
law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI by including language conferring
new authority (Deschler, ch 26, § 29.2; June 9, 2006, pp. 10681, 10682).
However, direct transfers of appropriations within the confines of the same
bill normally are considered in order (VII, 1468) as a ‘‘within-bill’’ transfer
rather than a transfer of unexpended balances of the kind addressed by
clause 2(a)(2).
To invoke the protection of clause 2(f), an amendment must not (1) pro-
pose a change other than a transfer of appropriations
§ 1063a. Offsetting en
bloc amendments. among objects in the bill, such as increasing the amount
of a deferral (June 15, 2000, p. 11064) or rescission
(Feb. 16, 2011, p. l) or reaching back in the reading (Feb. 15, 2011, p.
l); or (2) increase the levels of budget authority or outlays carried in
the bill (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513; July 12, 2000, p. 14071; July 13, 2004,
pp. 15193, 15194, pp. 15198, 15199), and the proponent of an amendment
carries the burden of so proving (see § 1044a, supra). An amendment other-
wise in order under this paragraph may nevertheless be in violation of
clause 2(a)(1) if increasing an appropriation above the authorized amount
contained in the bill (Aug. 4, 1999, p. 19513). The Chair will query for
points of order against provisions of a bill not yet read when they are
addressed by an offsetting amendment under this paragraph (e.g., May
17, 2005, p. 9975). On one occasion, the House adopted an order rendering
clause 2(f) unavailable during consideration of a bill in the case of an
amendment transferring appropriations among objects falling within more
than one suballocation under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget
[878]
Rule XXI, clause 2 § 1063b
Act of 1974 (Feb. 15, 2011, p. l), and an amendment to such bill proposing
such a transfer was ruled out as impermissibly addressing portions of the
bill not yet read (Feb. 15, 2011, p. l).
The 112th Congress (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l) established
§ 1063b. Spending
(1) a procedure for reducing an amount in a general
reduction account. appropriation bill and displaying that reduction in a
spending reduction account in the bill, and (2) a point
of order against an amendment increasing the level of budget authority
in a general appropriation bill, as follows:
(j) SPENDING REDUCTION AMENDMENTS IN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.
(1) During the reading of a general appropriation bill for amend-
ment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, it shall be in order to consider en bloc amendments proposing
only to transfer appropriations from an object or objects in the bill
to a spending reduction account. When considered en bloc under this
clause, such amendments may amend portions of the bill not yet
read for amendment (following disposition of any points of order
against such portions) and are not subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), it shall not be in order
to consider an amendment to a spending reduction account in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
(3) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill (unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amend-
ments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget author-
ity pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI).
(4) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall not apply
to a spending reduction account.
(5) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union unless it in-
cludes a spending reduction account as the last section of the bill.
An order to report a general appropriation bill to the House shall
constitute authority for the chair of the Committee on Appropria-
tions to add such a section to the bill or modify the figure contained
therein.
(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘spending reduction
account’’ means an account in a general appropriation bill that bears
that caption and contains only a recitation of the amount by which
an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of new
budget authority proposed by the bill.
The Chair is persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the
Committee on the Budget as to whether an amendment proposes a net
[879]
§ 1064–§ 1064d Rule XXI, clause 3
increase in budget authority in the bill under section 3(j)(3) (e.g., Feb. 15,
2011, p. l; Apr. 7, 2011, p. l (sustained by tabling of appeal)). An amend-
ment to a general appropriation bill proposing a limitation on funds in
the bill for the instant fiscal year was held not to propose a net increase
in budget authority within the meaning of this provision (Feb. 18, 2011,
p. l).
3. It shall not be in order to consider a general

§ 1064. Highway appropriation bill or joint resolu-
funding.
tion, or conference report thereon,
that—
(a) provides spending authority derived from
receipts deposited in the Highway Trust Fund
(excluding any transfers from the General
Fund of the Treasury); or
(b) reduces or otherwise limits the accruing
balances of the Highway Trust Fund,
for any purpose other than for those activities
authorized for the highway or mass transit cat-
egories.
This clause was rewritten entirely in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d)(4),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). For its predecessor, which enforced specified
minimum levels of surface transportation obligation limitations, see § 1064
of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110–162).
Section 48114 of title 49 (a provision first added by the Wendell H. Ford
§ 1064d. Funding for
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Cen-
aviation programs. tury (sec. 106, P.L. 106–181), and extended to 2007 by
its reenactment in title 49 (sec. 104, P.L. 108–176)) pro-
vides a point of order to enforce guarantees of total budget resources in
a fiscal year for certain aviation investment programs as follows:
SEC. 48114. FUNDING FOR AVIATION PROGRAMS.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
(1) AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND GUARANTEE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The total budget resources made available
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund each fiscal year
through fiscal year 2007 pursuant to sections 48101, 48102,
48103, and 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, shall be equal
to the level of receipts plus interest credited to the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund for that fiscal year. Such amounts may be
used only for aviation investment programs listed in subsection
(b).
[880]
Rule XXI, clause 3 § 1064d
(B) GUARANTEE.—No funds may be appropriated or limited for

aviation investment programs listed in subsection (b) unless the
amount described in subparagraph (A) has been provided.
(2) ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND.—In any fiscal year through fiscal year 2007, if the
amount described in paragraph (1) is appropriated, there is further
authorized to be appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury
such sums as may be necessary for the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion Operations account.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) TOTAL BUDGET RESOURCES.—The term ‘‘total budget resources’’
means the total amount made available from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund for the sum of obligation limitations and budget author-
ity made available for a fiscal year for the following budget accounts
that are subject to the obligation limitation on contract authority
provided in this title and for which appropriations are provided pur-
suant to authorizations contained in this title:
(A) 69–8106–0–7–402 (Grants in Aid for Airports).
(B) 69–8107–0–7–402 (Facilities and Equipment).
(C) 69–8108–0–7–402 (Research and Development).
(D) 69–8104–0–7–402 (Trust Fund Share of Operations).
(2) LEVEL OF RECEIPTS PLUS INTEREST.—The term ‘‘level of receipts
plus interest’’ means the level of excise taxes and interest credited
to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as set forth in the
President’s budget baseline projection as defined in section 257 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(Public Law 99–177) (Treasury identification code 20–8103–0–7–402)
for that fiscal year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code.
(c) ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEES.—
(1) TOTAL AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND FUNDING.—It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that would cause total budget resources in a fiscal year for aviation
investment programs described in subsection (b) to be less than the
amount required by subsection (a)(1)(A) for such fiscal year.
(2) CAPITAL PRIORITY.—It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that provides an appropria-
tion (or any amendment thereto) for any fiscal year through fiscal
year 2007 for Research and Development or Operations if the sum
of the obligation limitation for Grants-in-Aid for Airports and the ap-
propriation for Facilities and Equipment for such fiscal year is below
the sum of the authorized levels for Grants-in-Aid for Airports and
for Facilities and Equipment for such fiscal year.
[881]
The chairs of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Transpor-

tation and Infrastructure inserted in the Record correspondence concerning
points of order established in this section (Mar. 15, 2000, p. 2805).
Appropriations on legislative bills

4. A bill or joint resolution carrying an appro-
§ 1065. Restriction of priation may not be reported by a
power to report
appropriations. committee not having jurisdiction to
report appropriations, and an
amendment proposing an appropriation shall not
be in order during the consideration of a bill or
joint resolution reported by a committee not hav-
ing that jurisdiction. A point of order against an
appropriation in such a bill, joint resolution, or
amendment thereto may be raised at any time
during pendency of that measure for amend-
ment.
This portion of the rule was adopted June 1, 1920 (VII, 2133). When
1999, p. 47), this clause was returned to clause 4 where it had been until
moved to former clause 5(a) of rule XXI in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
A point of order under this rule cannot be raised against a motion to
suspend the rules (VIII, 3426), against a motion to discharge a nonappro-
priating committee from consideration of a bill carrying an appropriation
(VII, 2144), or against a Senate amendment (except as applied through
clause 5 of rule XXII) (VII, 1572). However, it may be directed against
an item of appropriation in a Senate bill (VII, 2136, 2147; July 30, 1957,
pp. 13056, 13181). If the House deletes a provision in a Senate bill under
this rule, the bill is messaged to the Senate with the deletion in the form
of an amendment. The point of order may be made against an appropriation
in a Senate bill that, although not reported in the House, is considered
in lieu of a reported House ‘‘companion bill’’ (VII, 2137; Mar. 29, 1933,
p. 988). This clause applies to an amendment proposed to a Senate amend-
ment to a House bill not reported from the Committee on Appropriations
(Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638–42). The rule does not apply to private bills because
the committees having jurisdiction over bills for the payment of private
claims may report bills making appropriations within the limits of their
jurisdiction (VII, 2135; Dec. 12, 1924, p. 538). The point of order under
this rule does not apply to an appropriation in a bill that has been taken
away from a nonappropriating committee by a motion to discharge (VII,
[882]
1019a). The point of order under this rule does not apply to a special order
reported from the Committee on Rules ‘‘self-executing’’ the adoption in
the House of an amendment containing an appropriation, because the
amendment is not separately before the House during consideration of the
special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542).
The provision in this clause that a point of order against an amendment
containing an appropriation to a legislative bill may be made ‘‘at any time’’
has been interpreted to require that the point of order be raised during
the pendency of the amendment under the five-minute rule (Mar. 18, 1946,
p. 2365; Apr. 28, 1975, p. 12043), and a point of order will lie against
an amendment during its pendency, even in its amended form, although
the point of order is against the amendment as amended by a substitute
and no point of order was raised against the substitute before its adoption
(Apr. 23, 1975, pp. 11512–13). However, the point of order must be raised
during the initial consideration of the bill or amendment under the five-
minute rule, and a point of order against similar language permitted to
remain in the House version and included in a conference report on a
bill will not lie, because the only rule prohibiting such inclusion (clause
5 of rule XXII) is limited to language originally contained in a Senate
amendment where the House conferees have not been specifically author-
ized to agree thereto (May 1, 1975, p. 12752). Where the House has adopted
a resolution waiving points of order against certain appropriations in a
legislative bill, a point of order may nevertheless be raised against an
amendment to the bill containing an identical provision, because under
this rule a point of order may be raised against the amendment ‘‘at any
time’’ (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11512). A point of order against a direct appropria-
tion in a bill initially reported from a legislative committee and then se-
quentially referred to and reported adversely by the Committee on Appro-
priations was conceded and sustained as in violation of this clause (Nov.
10, 1975, p. 35611). The point of order should be directed to the item of
appropriation in the bill and not to the act of reporting the bill (VII, 2143),
and cannot be directed to the entire bill (VII, 2142; Apr. 28, 1975, p. 12043).
The term ‘‘appropriation’’ in the rule means the payment of funds from
the Treasury, and the words ‘‘warranted and make available for expendi-
ture for payments’’ are equivalent to ‘‘is hereby appropriated’’ and therefore
not in order (VII, 2150). The words ‘‘available until expended,’’ making
an appropriation already made for one year available for ensuing years,
are not in order (VII, 2145).
The point of order provided for in this clause is not applicable to the
following provisions: (1) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to use
proceeds from the sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act (public
debt transactions) for the purpose of making loans, because such loans
do not constitute ‘‘appropriations’’ within the purview of the rule (June
28, 1949, pp. 8536–38; Aug. 2, 1950, p. 11599); (2) exempting loan guaran-
tees in a legislative bill from statutory limitations on expenditures (July
16, 1974, p. 23344); (3) authorizing the availability of certain loan receipts
[883]
where it can be shown that the actual availability of those receipts remains
contingent upon subsequent enactment of an appropriation act (Sept. 10,
1975, p. 28300); (4) increasing the duties of a commission (VII, 1578); (5)
authorizing payment from an appropriation to be made (Jan. 31, 1923,
p. 2794).
Language reappropriating, making available, or diverting an appropria-
tion or a portion of an appropriation already made for one purpose to an-
other (VII, 2146; Mar. 29, 1933, p. 988; Aug. 10, 1988, p. 21719), or for
one fiscal year to another (Mar. 26, 1992, p. 7223), is not in order. For
example, the following provisions have been held out of order: (1) expanding
the definition in existing law of recipients under a Federal subsidy program
as permitting a new use of funds already appropriated (May 11, 1976,
pp. 13409–11); (2) authorizing the use, without a subsequent appropriation,
of funds directly appropriated by a previous statute for a new purpose
(Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637–40). However, a modification of such a provision
making payments for such new purposes ‘‘effective only to the extent and
in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation acts’’ does
not violate this clause (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638–42).
The following provisions have also been held to be in violation of this
clause: (1) directing a departmental officer to pay a certain sum out of
unexpended balances (VII, 2154); (2) authorizing the use of funds of the
Shipping Board (VII, 2147); (3) directing payments out of Indian trust
funds (VII, 2149); (4) making excess foreign currencies immediately avail-
able for a new purpose (Aug. 3, 1971, p. 29109); (5) authorizing the collec-
tion of fees or user charges by Federal agencies and making the revenues
collected therefrom available without further appropriation (June 17, 1937,
pp. 5915–18; Mar. 29, 1972, pp. 10749–51); (6) transferring existing Federal
funds into a new Treasury trust fund to be immediately available for a
new purpose (June 20, 1974, pp. 20273–75); (7) transferring unexpended
balances of appropriations from an existing agency to a new agency created
therein (Apr. 9, 1979, p. 7774); (8) making a direct appropriation to carry
out a part of the Energy Security Act (Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28812); (9) requiring
the diversion of previously appropriated funds in lieu of the enactment
of new budget authority if a maximum deficit amount under the Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is exceeded, though its stated purpose may be to avoid
the sequestration of funds (Aug. 10, 1988, p. 21719).
Section 401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 317)
prohibits consideration in the House of any bill, resolution, or amendment
that provides new spending authority (as that term is defined in that sec-
tion) unless that measure also provides that such new spending authority
is to be available only to the extent provided in appropriation acts (see
§ 1127, supra). See also Deschler, ch. 25, § 4 for a discussion of appropria-
tions on legislative bills generally.
[884]
Tax and tariff measures and amendments

5. (a)(1) A bill or joint resolution carrying a
§ 1066. Restriction on tax or tariff measure may not be re-
bills and amendments
carrying taxes or ported by a committee not having
tariffs.
jurisdiction to report tax or tariff
measures, and an amendment in the House or
proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff
measure shall not be in order during the consid-
eration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee not having that jurisdiction. A point
of order against a tax or tariff measure in such
a bill, joint resolution, or amendment thereto
may be raised at any time during pendency of
that measure for amendment.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a tax or tar-
iff measure includes an amendment proposing a
limitation on funds in a general appropriation
bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.
Subparagraph (1) was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1983, p. 34). Subparagraph (2) was added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(o),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(b) of rule
XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A point of order under this paragraph against a provision in a bill is
in order at any time during consideration of the bill for amendment in
Committee of the Whole (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18649). On October 4, 1989,
the chair of the Committee of the Whole, before ruling on several points
of order under this paragraph, enunciated several guidelines to distinguish
taxes and tariffs on the one hand and user or regulatory fees and other
forms of revenue on the other (p. 23260). On the opening day of the 102d
Congress, Speaker Foley inserted in the Congressional Record the following
statement of jurisdictional concepts underlying those same distinctions and
indicated his intention to exercise his referral authority under rule X in
a manner consistent with this paragraph (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 64 (reiterated
at the beginning of each Congress, e.g., Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 39)):
Clause 5(b) (current clause 5(a)) of rule XXI prohibits the report-
ing of a tax or tariff matter by any committee not having that juris-
[885]
diction. Most of the questions of order arising under this clause since
its adoption in 1983 have related to provisions that clearly affected
the operation of the Internal Revenue Code or the customs laws.
From time to time, however, such a question has related to a provi-
sion drafted as a user or regulatory fee levied on members of a class
that occasions or avails itself of a particular governmental activity,
typically to generate revenue in support of that activity. In order to
provide guidance concerning the referral of bills, to assist committees
in staying within their appropriate jurisdictions under rule X, to as-
sist committees without jurisdiction over tax or tariff measures in
complying with clause 5(b) of rule XXI, and to protect the constitu-
tional prerogative of the House to originate revenue bills, the Speak-
er will make the following statement: Standing committees of the
House (other than the Committees on Appropriations and Budget)
have jurisdiction to consider user, regulatory and other fees, charges,
and assessments levied on a class directly availing itself of, or di-
rectly subject to, a governmental service, program, or activity, but
not on the general public, as measures to be utilized solely to sup-
port, subject to annual appropriations, the service, program, or activ-
ity (including agency functions associated therewith) for which such
fees, charges, and assessments are established and collected and not
to finance the costs of Government generally. The fee must be paid
by a class benefiting from the service, program or activity, or being
regulated by the agency; in short, there must be a reasonable con-
nection between the payors and the agency or function receiving the
fee. The fund that receives the amounts collected is not itself deter-
minative of the existence of a fee or a tax. The Committee on Ways
and Means has jurisdiction over ‘‘revenue measures generally’’ under
rule X. That committee is entitled to an appropriate referral of
broad-based fees and could choose to recast such fees as excise taxes.
A provision only reauthorizing or amending an existing fee without
fundamental change, or creating a new fee generating only a de
minimis aggregate amount of revenues, does not necessarily require
a sequential referral to the Committee on Ways and Means. The
Chair intends to coordinate these principles with the Committee on
the Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, especially in the
reconciliation process, so that budget scorekeeping does not deter-
mine, and reconciliation directives and their implementation will not
be inconsistent with, committee jurisdiction. Further, it should be
emphasized that the constitutional prerogative of the House to origi-
nate revenue measures will continue to be viewed broadly to include
any meaningful revenue proposal that the Senate may attempt to
originate.
The adoption of subparagraph (2) in the 108th Congress established a
different standard for determining a violation of this clause by an amend-
ment to a reported general appropriation bill than for a provision in the
[886]
appropriation bill itself. Before its adoption, a Member raising a point of

order under this paragraph against a provision in, or an amendment to,
a general appropriation bill affecting the use of funds therein (otherwise
traditionally in order if admissible under clause 2 of rule XXI), carried
the burden of showing a necessary, certain, and inevitable change in rev-
enue collections or tax statuses or liabilities (Sept. 12, 1984, pp. 25108,
25109, 25120; July 26, 1985, p. 20806; Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18649; July 13,
1990, p. 17473; June 18, 1991, p. 15189). The intent of the rules change,
as expressed during debate on the change, was ‘‘to ease the burden on
the maker of a point of order [against an amendment] from having to show
a necessary, certain and inevitable change in revenue collections, tax
statuses, or liability as previous precedents required, to one of showing
a textual relationship between the amendment and the administration of
the Internal Revenue or tariff laws’’ (Jan. 7, 2003, p. 12). Under that stand-
ard the following amendments to a general appropriation bill have been
held to impose a limitation on funds in violation of this clause: (1) a limita-
tion on funds to assess or collect any tax liability attributable to the inclu-
sion of certain economic assistance in the taxpayer’s gross income (Sept.
9, 2003, p. 21531); (2) a limitation on funds to process the importation
of any product from Iran (June 18, 2004, pp. 13041, 13042); (3) a limitation
on funds for the accession of the Russian Federation into the World Trade
Organization, thereby effecting changes to that country’s products under
domestic tariff law (June 28, 2006, p. 12958).
The precedents developed under this clause before its change in the
108th Congress still apply to the Chair’s determination whether a limita-
tion in a general appropriation bill (rather than an amendment thereto)
constitutes a tax or tariff measure proscribed by this paragraph. Prior
precedents addressing amendments are still viable for that determination.
The Chair will consider argument as to whether the limitation effectively
and inevitably changes revenue collections and tax status or liability (Aug.
1, 1986, p. 18649). For example, in determining whether an amendment
to a general appropriation bill proposing a change in IRS funding priorities
constituted a tax measure proscribed by this paragraph, the Chair consid-
ered argument as to whether the change would necessarily or inevitably
result in a loss or gain in tax liability and in tax collection (June 18, 1991,
p. 15189).
A limitation on the use of funds contained in a general appropriation
bill was held to violate this paragraph by denying the use of funds by
the Customs Service to enforce duty-free entry laws with respect to certain
imported commodities, thereby requiring the collection of revenues not oth-
erwise provided for by law (Oct. 27, 1983, p. 29611). Similar rulings were
issued: (1) where it was shown that the imposition of the restriction on
IRS funding for the fiscal year would effectively and inevitably preclude
the IRS or the Customs Service from collecting revenues otherwise due
and owing by law or require collection of revenue not legally due or owing
(July 26, 1985, p. 20806; Aug. 1, 1986, pp. 18649, 18650; July 17, 1996,
[887]
p. 17563); and (2) where a provision in a general appropriation bill prohib-

ited the use of funds to impose or assess certain taxes due under specified
portions of the Internal Revenue Code (July 13, 1990, p. 17473). In the
98th Congress, the Chair sustained points of order under this paragraph
against motions to concur in three Senate amendments to a general appro-
priation bill (not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means): (1) an
amendment denying the use of funds in that or any other Act by the IRS
to impose or assess any tax due under a designated provision of the Internal
Revenue Code, thereby rendering the tax uncollectable through the use
of any funds available to the agency (Sept. 12, 1984, p. 25108); (2) an
amendment directing the Secretary of the Treasury to admit free of duty
certain articles imported by a designated organization (Sept. 12, 1984, p.
25109); and (3) an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 to expand the
authority of the Customs Service to seize and use the proceeds from the
sale of contraband imports to defray operational expenses, and to offset
owed customs duties under one section of that law (Sept. 12, 1984, p.
25120). An amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing to divert
an increase in funding for the IRS from spot-checks to targeted audits
was held not to constitute a tax within the meaning of this paragraph
because it did not necessarily affect revenue collection levels or tax liabil-
ities (June 18, 1991, p. 15189).
In the 99th Congress, the following provisions in a reconciliation bill
reported from the Budget Committee were ruled out as tax measures not
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means: (1) a recommendation
from the Committee on Education and Labor excluding certain interest
on obligations from the Student Loan Marketing Association from applica-
tion of the Internal Revenue Code, affecting interest deductions against
income taxes (Oct. 24, 1985, pp. 28776, 28827); and (2) a recommendation
from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries expanding tax
benefits available to shipowners through a capital construction fund (Oct.
24, 1985, pp. 28802, 28827). In the 101st Congress, the following provisions
in an omnibus budget reconciliation bill were ruled out: (1) a fee per pas-
senger on cruise vessels, with revenues credited as proprietary receipts
of the Coast Guard to be used for port safety, security, navigation, and
antiterrorism activities (Oct. 4, 1989, p. 23260); (2) a per acre ‘‘ocean protec-
tion fee’’ on oil and gas leaseholdings in the Outer Continental Shelf, with
receipts to be used to offset costs of various ocean protection programs
(Oct. 4, 1989, p. 23261); (3) an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code
relating to the tax deductibility of pension fund contributions (Oct. 4, 1989,
p. 23262); (4) a fee incident to termination of employee benefit plans, with
receipts to be applied to enforcement and administration of plans remain-
ing with the system (Oct. 4, 1989, p. 23262); and (5) a fee incident to
the filing of various pension benefit plan reports required by law, with
revenues to be transferred to the Department of Labor for the enforcement
of that law (Oct. 5, 1989, p. 23328).
[888]
To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor author-

izing financial assistance to unemployed individuals for employment oppor-
tunities, an amendment providing instead for tax incentives to stimulate
employment was held to be a tax measure in violation of this paragraph
(Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145). A provision in a bill reported from the Committee
on Foreign Affairs imposing a uniform fee at ports of entry to be collected
by the Customs Service as a condition of importation of a commodity was
held to constitute a tariff within the meaning of this paragraph (June 4,
1985, p. 14009), as was an amendment to a bill reported from that com-
mittee amending the tariff schedules to deny ‘‘most favored nation’’ trade
treatment to a certain nation (July 11, 1985, p. 18590). A provision in
a general appropriation bill creating a new tariff classification was held
to constitute a tariff under this paragraph (June 15, 1994, p. 13103). A
motion to concur in a Senate amendment constituting a tariff measure
(imposing an import ban on certain dutiable goods) to a bill reported by
a committee not having tariff jurisdiction was ruled out under this para-
graph (Sept. 30, 1988, p. 27316). A proposal to increase a fee incident
to the filing of a securities registration statement, with the proceeds to
be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts,
was held to constitute a tax within the meaning of this paragraph because
the amount of revenue derived and the manner of its deposit indicated
a purpose to defray costs of Government, generally (Oct. 23, 1990, p. 32650).
To a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
an amendment increasing a user fee was ruled out as a tax measure where
the fee overcollected to offset a reduction in another fee, thus attenuating
the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the Govern-
ment activity for which it was assessed (May 9, 1995, p. 12180). To a bill
reported by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, an amend-
ment proposing sundry changes in the Federal income tax by direct amend-
ments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 was ruled out of order as
carrying a tax measure in violation of this paragraph (Sept. 16, 1992, p.
25205), as were amendments to a general appropriation bill proposing in
part to temper recently enacted reductions in rates of tax on income (July
10, 2003, p. 17535, p. 17576).
Passage of tax rate increases

(b) A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or
§ 1067. Three-fifths conference report carrying a Fed-
vote to increase
income tax rates. eral income tax rate increase may
not be considered as passed or
agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not
less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a
quorum being present. In this paragraph the
[889]
term ‘‘Federal income tax rate increase’’ means

any amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or
(e) of section 1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes a
new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby in-
creases the amount of tax imposed by any such
section.
This provision was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(a), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), and in the 105th Congress it was amended to
clarify the definition of ‘‘Federal income tax rate increase’’ as limited to
a specific amendment to one of the named subsections (H. Res. 5, Jan.
this provision was found in former clause 5(c) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). On one occasion the Chair held that a provision repealing
a ceiling on total tax liability attributable to a net capital gain was not
subject to the original version of this paragraph (Apr. 5, 1995, p. 10614).
The modified version of this paragraph comprises three elements (an
amendment to a pertinent section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
the imposition of a new rate of tax thereunder, and an increase in the
amount of tax thereby imposed) and a measure that does not fulfill even
the first element does not carry a Federal income tax rate increase (Jan.
18, 2007, pp. 1621, 1622 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 3, 2011,
p. l). This paragraph does not apply to a concurrent resolution (Speaker
Gingrich, May 18, 1995, p. 13499). A resolution reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules rendering this paragraph inapplicable may be adopted
by majority vote (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477). The Speaker rules on the applica-
bility of this paragraph only pending the question of final passage of a
measure alleged to carry a Federal income tax rate increase, and not in
advance upon adoption of a special order rendering this paragraph inappli-
cable (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477).
Consideration of retroactive tax rate in-

creases
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a bill,
§ 1068. Prohibition joint resolution, amendment, or con-
against retroactive
income tax rate ference report carrying a retroactive
increase.
Federal income tax rate increase. In
this paragraph—
(1) the term ‘‘Federal income tax rate in-
crease’’ means any amendment to subsection
[890]
Rule XXI, clause 7 § 1068a–§ 1068b
(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section

11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate
of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax
imposed by any such section; and
(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is ret-
roactive if it applies to a period beginning be-
fore the enactment of the provision.
This paragraph was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 106(b), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), and it was amended in the 105th Congress to
clarify the definition of ‘‘Federal income tax rate increase’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan.
this provision was found in former clause 5(d) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Designation of public works

6. It shall not be in order to consider a bill,
§ 1068a. Restriction on joint resolution, amendment, or con-
designation of public
works. ference report that provides for the
designation or redesignation of a
public work in honor of an individual then serv-
ing as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, or Senator.
This clause was adopted in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
7. It shall not be in order to consider a concur-

§ 1068b. Restriction on rent resolution on the budget, or an
reconciliation
directives. amendment thereto, or a conference
report thereon that contains rec-
onciliation directives under section 310 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that specify
changes in law such that the reconciliation legis-
lation reported pursuant to such directives
would cause an increase in net direct spending
[891]
§ 1068c–§ 1068d Rule XXI, clause 9
(as such term is defined in clause 10) for the pe-

riod covered by such concurrent resolution.
This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 402, H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), amended in the 111th Congress
to reflect a change in the time periods in clause 10(a)(1) (sec. 2(j), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l), and rewritten in the 112th Congress to focus on
an increase in direct spending instead of a reduction in the surplus or
an increase in the deficit (sec. 2(d)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
8. With respect to measures considered pursu-

§ 1068c. Budget Act ant to a special order of business,
points of order.
points of order under title III of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall operate
without regard to whether the measure con-
cerned has been reported from committee. Such
points of order shall operate with respect to (as
the case may be)—
(a) the form of a measure recommended by
the reporting committee where the statute
uses the term ‘‘as reported’’ (in the case of a
measure that has been so reported);
(b) the form of the measure made in order
as an original bill or joint resolution for the
purpose of amendment; or
(c) the form of the measure on which the
previous question is ordered directly to pas-
sage.
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider—

(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by a
§ 1068d. Congressional committee unless the report in-
earmarks.
cludes a list of congressional ear-
marks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff
benefits in the bill or in the report (and the
[892]
name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted a request to the
committee for each respective item included in
such list) or a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by
a committee unless the chair of each com-
mittee of initial referral has caused a list of
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits,
and limited tariff benefits in the bill (and the
name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who submitted a request to the
committee for each respective item included in
such list) or a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be
printed in the Congressional Record prior to
its consideration;
(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolu-
tion to be offered at the outset of its consider-
ation for amendment by a member of a com-
mittee of initial referral as designated in a re-
port of the Committee on Rules to accompany
a resolution prescribing a special order of
business unless the proponent has caused a
list of congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the
amendment (and the name of any Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who sub-
mitted a request to the proponent for each re-
spective item included in such list) or a state-
ment that the proposition contains no congres-
[893]
§ 1068d Rule XXI, clause 9
sional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or lim-

ited tariff benefits to be printed in the Con-
gressional Record prior to its consideration; or
(4) a conference report to accompany a bill
or joint resolution unless the joint explanatory
statement prepared by the managers on the
part of the House and the managers on the
part of the Senate includes a list of congres-
sional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and lim-
ited tariff benefits in the conference report or
joint statement (and the name of any Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator
who submitted a request to the House or Sen-
ate committees of jurisdiction for each respec-
tive item included in such list) or a statement
that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tar-
iff benefits.
(b) It shall not be in order to consider a con-
ference report to accompany a regular general
appropriation bill unless the joint explanatory
statement prepared by the managers on the part
of the House and the managers on the part of
the Senate includes—
(1) a list of congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the
conference report or joint statement (and the
name of any Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator who submitted a re-
quest to the House or Senate committees of ju-
risdiction for each respective item included in
such list) that were neither committed to the
conference committee by either House nor in a
[894]
report of a committee of either House on such

bill or on a companion measure; or
(2) a statement that the proposition contains
no such congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule
or order that waives the application of para-
graph (a) or (b). As disposition of a point of order
under this paragraph or paragraph (b), the
Chair shall put the question of consideration
with respect to the rule or order or conference
report, as applicable. The question of consider-
ation shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the
Member initiating the point of order and for 10
minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be
decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.
(d) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a
point of order raised under paragraph (a) may
be based only on the failure of a report, submis-
sion to the Congressional Record, or joint ex-
planatory statement to include a list required by
paragraph (a) or a statement that the propo-
sition contains no congressional earmarks, lim-
ited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
(e) For the purpose of this clause, the term
‘‘congressional earmark’’ means a provision or
report language included primarily at the re-
quest of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or rec-
ommending a specific amount of discretionary
budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan
[895]
§ 1068d Rule XXI, clause 9
guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other ex-

penditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or Congressional district,
other than through a statutory or administrative
formula-driven or competitive award process.
(f) For the purpose of this clause, the term
‘‘limited tax benefit’’ means—
(1) any revenue-losing provision that—
(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, cred-
it, exclusion, or preference to 10 or fewer
beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, and
(B) contains eligibility criteria that are
not uniform in application with respect to
potential beneficiaries of such provision; or
(2) any Federal tax provision which provides
one beneficiary temporary or permanent tran-
sition relief from a change to the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1986.
(g) For the purpose of this clause, the term
‘‘limited tariff benefit’’ means a provision modi-
fying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States in a manner that benefits 10 or
fewer entities.
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), a similar point of order having oper-
ated during part of the 109th Congress (H. Res. 1000, Sept. 14, 2006, p.
18316). Paragraph (b) was added in the 111th Congress (and subsequent
paragraphs redesignated) (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l), a similar
point of order having operated during part of the 110th Congress (H. Res.
491, June 18, 2007, p. 16163). A clarifying change to paragraph (b)(2) was
made during the 111th Congress (sec. 2, H. Res. 544, June 16, 2009, p.
l). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
A point of order under this clause does not lie against an unreported
measure where the chair of the committee of initial referral has printed
[896]
Rule XXI, clause 10 § 1068f
in the Record a statement that the measure contains no congressional ear-

marks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits (Jan. 31, 2007, pp.
2737, 2738 (sustained by tabling of appeal)), or against a reported measure
where the committee report contains such a statement (May 10, 2007, pp.
12190, 12191; May 23, 2007, p. 13686). Paragraph (d) requires that a point
of order under this clause be predicated only on the absence of a complying
statement, and does not contemplate a question of order relating to the
content of such statement (May 10, 2007, p. 12191). A point of order under
this clause is untimely after consideration has begun (Mar. 23, 2007, pp.
7420, 7423). Because paragraph (a) does not apply to a Senate amendment
or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to a special order of
business, a rule waiving all points of order against a motion to dispose
of a Senate amendment (Sept. 25, 2007, p. 25434 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)) or a rule effecting a ‘‘self-executing’’ amendment (Sept. 27, 2007,
p. 25723)) has no tendency to waive the applicability of paragraph (a) with-
in the meaning of paragraph (c). After a point of order under paragraph
(a)(1) is sustained against consideration of a bill, a committee may file
a supplemental report pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII to correct
a technical error in the depiction of a bill number in the portion of a com-
mittee report regarding disclosure under this clause (July 30, 2010, p. l).
Debate on the point of order is on the question of considering the measure
that is the subject of the point of order (May 14, 2008, l). A point of
order under both this clause and section 426 of the Congressional Budget
Act, respectively, may be raised against a special order of business (May
14, 2008, p. l). A manager of a measure who controls time for debate
against the point of order that is to be resolved by a question of consider-
ation is entitled to close debate (Mar 21, 2010, p. l).
10. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)

and (c), it shall not be in order to
§ 1068f. Cut-as-you-go
point of order.
consider a bill or joint resolution, or
an amendment thereto or a conference report
thereon, if the provisions of such measure have
the net effect of increasing mandatory spending
for the period of either—
(A) the current year, the budget year, and
the four fiscal years following that budget
year; or
(B) the current year, the budget year, and
the nine fiscal years following that budget
year.
[897]
§ 1068f Rule XXI, clause 10
(2) For the purpose of this clause, the terms

‘‘budget year’’ and ‘‘current year’’ have the mean-
ings specified in section 250 of the Balanced
1985, and the term ‘‘mandatory spending’’ has
the meaning of ‘‘direct spending’’ specified in
such section 250 except that such term shall also
include provisions in appropriation Acts that
make outyear modifications to substantive law
as described in section 3(4)(C) of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
(b) If a bill or joint resolution, or an amend-
ment thereto, is considered pursuant to a special
order of the House directing the Clerk to add as
new matter at the end of such bill or joint reso-
lution the entire text of a separate measure or
measures as passed by the House, the new mat-
ter proposed to be added shall be included in the
evaluation under paragraph (a) of the bill, joint
resolution, or amendment.
(c)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2),
the evaluation under paragraph (a) shall exclude
a provision expressly designated as an emer-
gency for the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, in the case of a point of order under this
clause against consideration of—
(A) a bill or joint resolution;
(B) an amendment made in order as original
text by a special order of business;
(C) a conference report; or
(D) an amendment between the Houses.
(2) In the case of an amendment (other than
one specified in subparagraph (1)) to a bill or
[898]
Rule XXI, clause 10 § 1068h–§ 1068j
joint resolution, the evaluation under paragraph

(a) shall give no cognizance to any designation of
emergency.
Clause 10 was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 405, H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)) and amended in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 5, H. Res. 1500, July 1, 2010,
p. l). In its original form it addressed increases in the deficit or surplus
caused by changes in revenue and direct spending. It was changed to its
present form in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l). The Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget whether the net effect of an amendment
increases mandatory spending as compared to the proposition to which
offered (e.g., Jan. 26, 2011, p. l; Mar. 3, 2011, p. l (sustained by tabling
of appeal); Mar. 10, 2011, p. l; Mar. 11, 2011, p. l). A point of order
against a bill under this clause is not timely pending the question of en-
grossment and third reading (Mar. 30, 2011, p. l).
For the 112th Congress, the House (in sec. 3(g) of H. Res. 5) established
a point of order against consideration of a measure in-
§ 1068h. Limitation on
creasing mandatory spending above a certain threshold
long-term spending.
over certain periods as follows:
(g) LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.—
(1) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution re-
ported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropria-
tions), or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if
the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing man-
datory spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described
in paragraph (2).
(2)(A) The applicable periods for purposes of this clause are any
of the first four consecutive 10-fiscal-year periods beginning with the
first fiscal year following the last fiscal year for which the applicable
concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth appropriate budgetary
levels.
(2)(B) In this paragraph, the applicable concurrent resolution on
the budget is the one most recently adopted before the date on which
a committee first reported the bill or joint resolution described in
paragraph (a).
Under the former clause 10, the Chair was authoritatively guided by
§ 1068j. Former pay-as-
estimates from the Committee on the Budget as to the
you-go point of order. net effect of a provision on the relevant surplus or def-
icit (Dec. 12, 2007, p. l). Spending provided by appro-
priation acts did not constitute ‘‘direct spending’’ (May 15, 2008, p. l).
For a complete recitation of precedents under the former clause, see § 1068e
of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110–162).
[899]
§ 1068i–§ 1069 Rule XXII, clause 1
11. It shall not be in order to consider a bill

or joint resolution which has not
§ 1068i. Availability of
introduced measures.
been reported by a committee until
the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, or legal holidays except when the
House is in session on such a day) on which
such measure has been available to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l). It applies to bills and joint resolutions only (Jan. 7, 2011,
p. l) and is predicated on a number of days (not hours) of availability,
including electronic availability in consonance with clause 3 of rule XXIX
(Mar. 17, 2011, p. l). A point of order under this clause is not ripe until
the measure in question is called up for consideration (Mar. 17, 2011, p.
l).
RULE XXII
HOUSE AND SENATE RELATIONS
Senate amendments
1. A motion to disagree to Senate amendments
§ 1069. Motion for to a House proposition and to re-
conference.
quest or agree to a conference with
the Senate, or a motion to insist on House
amendments to a Senate proposition and to re-
quest or agree to a conference with the Senate,
shall be privileged in the discretion of the
Speaker if offered by direction of the primary
committee and of all reporting committees that
had initial referral of the proposition.
This provision (proviso in former clause 1 of rule XX), added by the 89th
Congress (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p. 21), provides a method whereby bills
can be sent to conference by majority vote. As contained in section 126(a)
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and adopted
as part of the Rules of the House in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144), this clause included language relating to separate votes
[900]
Rule XXII, clause 2 § 1070–§ 1071
on nongermane Senate amendments that was, in the 93d Congress, modi-

fied and transferred to former clause 5 of rule XXVIII (current clause 10
of rule XXII) (H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195–99). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 1 and 3 of this rule
occupied a single clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Technical changes were effected in the 108th Congress
(sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
The motion to send a bill to conference under this clause is in order
§ 1070. Motion for
notwithstanding the fact that the stage of disagreement
conference. has not been reached (Aug. 1, 1972, p. 26153). On a
bill that has been initially referred and reported in the
House, the motion must be authorized by all committees reporting thereon
(Sept. 26, 1978, p. 31623). However, a committee receiving sequential refer-
ral of a bill or not reporting thereon need not authorize the motion (Oct.
4, 1994, p. 27643). This clause was recodified in the 106th Congress to
reflect this practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). On a Senate bill with
a House amendment consisting of the text of two corresponding House
bills that were previously reported to the House, the motion must be au-
thorized by the committees reporting those corresponding bills (Oct. 1,
1998, p. 22944). Where such a motion has been rejected by the House,
it may be repeated if the committee having jurisdiction over the subject
matter again authorizes its chair to make the motion (Deschler-Brown,
ch. 33, § 2.13). The motion to send to conference is in order only if the
Speaker chooses to recognize for that purpose, and the Speaker will not
recognize for the motion where there has been referred a nongermane Sen-
ate amendment to a House committee with jurisdiction and they have not
yet had the opportunity to consider the amendment (June 28, 1984, p.
19770). Under clause 2(a)(3) of rule XI, a committee may adopt a rule
providing that the chair be directed to offer a motion under this clause
whenever the chair considers it appropriate (§ 791, supra).
2. A motion to dispose of House bills with Sen-

§ 1071. Privilege of ate amendments not requiring con-
certain Senate
amendments. sideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the
Union shall be privileged.
This provision was adopted in 1890 (IV, 3089) as part of the rule gov-
erning disposal of business on the Speaker’s table (formerly clause 2 of
rule XXIV). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
all provisions of former clause 2 of rule XXIV except this one were trans-
ferred to clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For a discussion
of referral of Senate amendments at the Speaker’s table, see § 873, supra.
[901]
§ 1072–§ 1073 Rule XXII, clause 3
3. Except as permitted by clause 1, before the

stage of disagreement, a Senate
§ 1072. Consideration
of Senate amendments
amendment to a House bill or reso-
in Committee of the
Whole.
lution shall be subject to the point
of order that it must first be considered in the
the Union if, originating in the House, it would
be subject to such a point under clause 3 of rule
XVIII.
This provision was adopted in 1880 to prevent Senate amendments of
the class described from escaping consideration in Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4796). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
clauses 1 and 3 of this rule occupied a single clause (formerly clause 1
of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Although a Senate amendment that is merely a modification of a House
proposition, such as the increase or decrease of the
of Senate amendments amount of an appropriation, and does not involve new
in Committee of the and distinct expenditure, may not be required to be con-
Whole. sidered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4797–4806;
VIII, 2382–2385), where the question was raised
against a Senate amendment that on its face apparently placed a charge
upon the Treasury, the Speaker held it devolved upon those opposing the
point of order to cite proof to the contrary (VIII, 2387). When an amend-
ment is offered in the House to provide an appropriation for another pur-
pose than that of the Senate amendment, the House resolves into Com-
mittee of the Whole to consider it (IV, 4795). When an amendment is re-
ferred, the entire bill goes to the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4808), but
the Committee considers only the Senate amendment (V, 6192). It usually
considers all the amendments, although they may not all be within the
rule requiring such consideration (V, 6195). In Committee of the Whole
a Senate amendment, even though it be very long, is considered as an
entirety and not by paragraphs or sections (V, 6194). When reported from
the Committee of the Whole, Senate amendments are voted on en bloc
and only those amendments on which a separate vote is demanded are
voted on severally (VIII, 3191). It has been held that each amendment
is subject to general debate and amendment under the five-minute rule
(V, 6193, 6196). The requirement of this clause that certain Senate amend-
ments be considered in Committee of the Whole applies only before the
stage of disagreement has been reached on the Senate amendment, and
it is too late after the House has disagreed thereto and the amendments
have been reported from conference in disagreement to raise a point of
order that Senate amendments should have been considered in Committee
[902]
of the Whole (Oct. 20, 1966, p. 28240; Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38714). The Com-
mittee on Rules may recommend a special order of business providing that
a Senate amendment pending at the Speaker’s table and otherwise requir-
ing consideration in Committee of the Whole under this clause be ‘‘hereby’’
adopted, which special order, if adopted, would obviate the requirement
of this clause (Deschler, ch. 21, § 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p. 2500).
When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with amend-
§ 1074. Stage of
ments of the other House, motions to dispose of said
disagreement between amendments are privileged in the House (clause 4 of
Houses. rule XXII; IV, 3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194).
The stage of disagreement between the two Houses is
reached after the House in possession of the papers has either disagreed
to the amendment(s) of the other House or has insisted on its own amend-
ment to a measure of the other House (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not
merely where the other House has returned a bill with an amendment
(Dec. 7, 1977, p. 38728). Thus, where the House concurred in a Senate
amendment to a House bill with an amendment, insisted on the amend-
ment and requested a conference, and the Senate then concurred in the
House amendment with a further amendment, the matter was privileged
in the House for further disposition because the House had communicated
its insistence and request for a conference to the Senate (Speaker Albert,
Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).
4. When the stage of disagreement has been

§ 1075. Privilege when reached on a bill or resolution with
stage of disagreement
reached. House or Senate amendments, a
motion to dispose of any amend-
ment shall be privileged.
This provision was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress to codify current practice, which is described in § 1074,
supra (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
5. (a) Managers on the part of the House may

§ 1076. Conferees may not agree to a Senate amendment
not agree to certain
Senate amendments. described in paragraph (b) unless
specific authority to agree to the
amendment first is given by the House by a sep-
arate vote with respect thereto. If specific au-
thority is not granted, the Senate amendment
shall be reported in disagreement by the con-
[903]
§ 1076 Rule XXII, clause 5
ference committee back to the two Houses for

disposition by separate motion.
(b) The managers on the part of the House
may not agree to a Senate amendment described
in paragraph (a) that—
(1) would violate clause 2(a)(1) or (c) of rule
XXI if originating in the House; or
(2) proposes an appropriation on a bill other
than a general appropriation bill.
This clause was adopted on June 1, 1920 (pp. 8109, 8120). Before the
in former clause 2 of rule XX. The recodification also extended the rule
to Senate amendments containing reappropriations of unexpended bal-
ances now referenced in clause 2(c) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
Although the rule provides for a motion authorizing the managers on
the part of the House to agree to amendments of the Senate in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI, such as a motion to recommit a conference report
on a general appropriation bill with instructions to agree to a legislative
Senate amendment (Speaker Albert, Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42565), it does not
permit a motion to recommit a conference report on a general appropriation
bill to include instructions to add legislation to that contained in a Senate
amendment (Nov. 13, 1973, p. 36847). It had been customary after a con-
ference on a general appropriation bill with numbered Senate amendments
for the managers to report certain Senate amendments in technical dis-
agreement, and after the partial conference report (consisting of agreement
on those Senate amendments not in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI) is
disposed of, the remaining amendments are taken up in order and disposed
of directly in the House by separate motion. When Senate amendments
in disagreement are considered in this fashion, they are not subject to
a point of order under this clause (Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38714); and a motion
to (recede and) concur in the Senate amendment with a further amendment
is also in order, even if the proposed amendment is also legislation on
an appropriation bill. The only test is whether the proposed amendment
is germane to the Senate amendment reported in disagreement (IV, 3909;
VIII, 3188, 3189; Speaker McCormack, Dec. 15, 1970, p. 41504; Aug. 1,
1979, pp. 22007–11; Speaker O’Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, p. 35520; June 30,
1987, p. 18308). In recent years Senate amendments to House-passed gen-
eral appropriation bills have been in the nature of a substitute, which
are not divided for separate disposition in conference.
In the event an appropriation bill with Senate amendments in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI is sent to conference by unanimous consent, such
[904]
Rule XXII, clause 6 § 1076
procedure does not thereby prevent a point of order from being sustained
against the conference report should the managers on the part of the House
violate the provisions of this clause (VII, 1574). But where a special rule
in the House waives points of order against portions of an appropriation
bill that are unauthorized by law, and the bill passes the House with those
provisions included therein and goes to conference, the conferees may re-
port back their agreement to those provisions even though they remain
unauthorized, because the waiver in the House of points of order under
this clause carries over to the consideration of the same provisions when
the conference report is before the House (Dec. 20, 1969, pp. 40445–48,
consideration of conference report; Dec. 9, 1969, p. 37948, adoption of spe-
cial rule waiving points of order against the bill in the House). The rule
is a restriction upon the managers on the part of the House only, and
does not provide for a point of order against a Senate amendment when
it comes up for action by the House (VII, 1572). Managers may be author-
ized to agree to an appropriation by a resolution reported from the Com-
mittee on Rules (VII, 1577). House managers may include in their report
a modification of a Senate amendment that eliminates the appropriation
in that amendment (June 8, 1972, p. 20280); and the prohibition in this
clause applies only to language in Senate amendments. Thus the conferees
may without violating this clause agree to language in a Senate bill that
was sent to conference (Speaker Albert, Jan. 25, 1972, pp. 1076, 1077;
June 30, 1976, pp. 21632–34) or agree to language in a House bill that
was permitted to remain and that constitutes an appropriation on a legisla-
tive bill (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12752).
A provision in a Senate amendment included in a conference report on
an authorization bill considered after the relevant appropriation has been
enacted into law, directing that funds appropriated pursuant to the author-
ization be obligated and expended on a project not specifically funded in
the appropriation, is itself an appropriation and may not be agreed to by
House conferees (Nov. 29, 1979, pp. 34113–15); and House conferees were
held to have violated this clause when they had agreed to a provision in
a Senate amendment not only authorizing appropriations to pay judgments
against the United States for the award of attorney fees and other court
costs, but also requiring that where such payments were not paid out of
appropriated funds, payment be made in the same manner as judgments
under 28 U.S.C. 2414 and 2517 (payable directly out of the Treasury pursu-
ant to a direct appropriation previously provided by law in 31 U.S.C. 1304)
(Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637–40).
6. A Senate amendment carrying a tax or tar-

iff measure in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI
may not be agreed to.
This provision was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress to reiterate the prohibition found in clause 5(a) of rule
[905]
XXI against a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure not
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
Conference reports; amendments reported in

disagreement
7. (a) The presentation of a conference report
§ 1077. High privilege shall be in order at any time except
of conference reports;
and form of during a reading of the Journal or
accompanying
statement.
the conduct of a record vote, a vote
by division, or a quorum call.
The practice of giving conference reports privilege dates from 1850, hav-
ing had its origin in a temporary rule. This practice was continued by
rulings of the Chair until this rule was adopted in 1880 (V, 6443–6446,
provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). For the requirement of a tax complexity analysis in either
the joint statement or the Record, see clause 11 of this rule.
Under the language of the rule, a conference report may be presented:
(1) while a Member is occupying the floor in debate (V, 6451; VIII 3294);
(2) while a bill is being read (V, 6448); (3) after the yeas and nays have
been ordered (V, 6457); (4) after a vote by tellers and pending the question
of ordering the yeas and nays, although it may not be presented while
the House is dividing (V, 6447); (5) after the previous question has been
demanded or ordered (V, 6449, 6450); (6) during a call of the House if
a quorum be present (V, 6456); (7) pending the forthwith report of a com-
mittee following adoption of a motion to recommit while the previous ques-
tion is operating (e.g., Apr. 24, 2007, pp. 9923 0925); (8) on Calendar
Wednesday (VII, 907), but consideration of such reports yields to Calendar
Wednesday business (VII, 899). It takes precedence over: (1) a motion to
adjourn (V, 6451–6453), although as soon as the report is presented the
motion to adjourn may be put (V, 6451–6453); (2) a report from the Com-
mittee on Rules (V, 6449); (3) the motion to reconsider (V, 5605); (4) the
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of
general appropriation bills (VIII, 3291); (5) consideration of District of Co-
lumbia business on Monday (VIII, 3292); (6) unfinished business (Speaker
O’Neill, Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33473). It has been permitted to intervene when
a special order provides that the House shall consider a certain bill ‘‘until
the same is disposed of’’ (V, 6454). The consideration of a conference report
may be interrupted, even in the midst of the reading of the statement,
by the arrival of the hour previously fixed for a recess (V, 6524). Of course,
a question of privilege that relates to the integrity of the House as an
agency for action may not be required to yield precedence to a matter
[906]
entitled to priority merely by the rules relating to the order of business

(V, 6454).
The question of consideration under clause 3 of rule XVI may be de-
manded against a conference report before points of order against the re-
port are raised (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33019). The
motion to lay on the table may not be applied to a conference report (V,
6540). The Chair will not recognize for a unanimous-consent request to
correct a conference report, including the joint statement of managers, be-
cause it is a joint report to the two Houses (Oct. 3, 2000, p. 20560).
Although the rule provides that the managers of the House asking for
conference shall leave the papers with the managers of the other (§§ 555,
556, supra), if the managers on the part of the House agreeing to a con-
ference surrender the papers to the House asking the conference, the report
may be received first by the House asking the conference (VIII, 3330).
For further discussion of conference reports, see provisions of Jefferson’s
Manual at §§ 527–559, supra.
(b)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2) the time al-

§ 1078. Time for debate lotted for debate on a motion to in-
on motions to
instruct. struct managers on the part of the
House shall be equally divided be-
tween the majority and minority parties.
(2) If the proponent of a motion to instruct
managers on the part of the House and the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of
the other party identified under subparagraph
(1) both support the motion, one-third of the
time for debate thereon shall be allotted to a
who opposes the motion on demand of that
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.
This paragraph was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
it was found in former clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). The division of debate time specified in this clause does not apply
to an amendment to a motion after defeat of the previous question thereon,
and the proponent of such an amendment is recognized for one hour under
clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22863;
July 14, 1993, p. 15668; Aug. 1, 1994, p. 18868). The proponent of a motion
to instruct conferees has the right to close debate (July 28, 1994, p. 18405;
July 26, 1996, p. 19450).
[907]
(c)(1) A motion to instruct managers on the

§ 1079. Motions part of the House, or a motion to
privileged after 20
calendar days and 10 discharge all managers on the part
legislative days of
conference.
of the House and to appoint new
conferees, shall be privileged after a
conference committee has been appointed for 20
calendar days and 10 legislative days without
making a report, but only on the day after the
calendar day on which the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner offering the motion an-
nounces to the House intention to do so and the
form of the motion.
(2) The Speaker may designate a time in the
legislative schedule on that legislative day for
consideration of a motion described in subpara-
graph (1).
(3) During the last six days of a session of
Congress, a motion under subparagraph (1) shall
be privileged after a conference committee has
been appointed for 36 hours without making a
report and the proponent meets the notice re-
quirement in subparagraph (1).
(d) Instructions to conferees in a motion to in-
struct or in a motion to recommit to conference
may not include argument.
Paragraph (c) (formerly clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII) was adopted Decem-
ber 8, 1931 (VIII, 3225). The notice requirement was added on January
3, 1989 (H. Res. 5, 101st Cong., p. 72), and amended on January 5, 1993
(H. Res. 5, 103d Cong., p. 49) to clarify that both the motion to discharge
conferees and appoint new conferees and the motion to instruct conferees
after the requisite time in conference are subject to one day’s notice, and
to authorize the Speaker to designate a time in that day’s legislative sched-
ule for the consideration of a noticed motion to discharge or instruct con-
ferees. Paragraph (c) was amended again in the 108th Congress to permit
the motion to be offered after not only 20 calendar days but also after
10 legislative days, measured concurrently (sec. 2(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7,
[908]
2003, p. 7); and technical amendments to paragraph (c)(3) were effected

in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44) and 111th
Congress (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Paragraph (d) was
added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
the 106th Congress, paragraph (c) was found in former clause 1(c) of rule
XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Recodification resulted in certain
unintended changes to paragraph (c), and the paragraph was restored to
its original intent in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 25).
The motion to instruct conferees under this clause may be repeated not-
withstanding prior disposition of an identical motion to instruct, because
any number of proper motions to instruct are in order after conferees have
failed to report within the requisite time (Speaker Albert, July 22, 1974,
p. 24448; July 10, 1985, p. 18440), and the motion remains available when
a conference report, filed after the requisite time, is recommitted by the
first House to act thereon, because the conferees are not discharged and
the original conference remains in being (June 28, 1990, p. 16156). A motion
under this clause may instruct House conferees to insist on holding con-
ference sessions under just and fair conditions, and in executive session
if desirable (Aug. 1, 1935, p. 12272), and may instruct House conferees
to meet with Senate conferees (May 2, 1984, p. 10732). The motion to in-
struct conferees under this clause is of equal privilege with the motion
to suspend the rules on a suspension day (Mar. 1, 1988, pp. 2749, 2751,
2754). The motion to adjourn is in order while a motion to instruct under
this paragraph is pending (Sept. 30, 1997, p. 20886), and, if such a motion
to adjourn is adopted, the motion to instruct is rendered unfinished busi-
ness on the next day without need for further notice under this paragraph
(Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20894). Under clause 8(a)(2)(C) of rule XX, proceedings
may not resume on a postponed question of agreeing to a 20-day motion
to instruct conferees after the managers have filed a conference report
in the House (Oct. 19, 1999, p. 25961; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30780; May 19,
2004, p. 10129).
(e) Each conference report to the House shall

be printed as a report of the House.
§ 1080. The statement
accompanying a
Each such report shall be accom-
conference report.
panied by a joint explanatory state-

ment prepared jointly by the managers on the
part of the House and the managers on the part
of the Senate. The joint explanatory statement
shall be sufficiently detailed and explicit to in-
[909]
§ 1081–§ 1082 Rule XXII, clause 8
form the House of the effects of the report on the

matters committed to conference.
The original rule requiring the submission of a statement was adopted
in 1880 (V, 6443) and remained in effect through the 91st Congress. The
precedents carried in this annotation interpret the earlier rule, which re-
quired only that the statement be signed by a majority of the House man-
agers (V, 6505, 6506) and did not anticipate a statement jointly prepared
by the managers on the part of the House and those on the part of the
Senate. The rule was revised in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(sec. 125(b); 84 Stat. 1140) and made a part of the standing Rules of the
House in its present form in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
provision was found in former clause 1(d) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
The Speaker may require the statement to be in proper form (V, 6513),
but it is for the House and not the Speaker to determine whether or not
it conforms to the rule in other respects (V, 6511, 6512). A report may
not be received without the accompanying statement (V, 6505, 6507–6510).
A quorum among the managers on the part of the House at a committee
of conference is established by their signatures on the conference report
and joint explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27662). When the House
by unanimous consent permitted the chair of a House committee to insert
in the Record extraneous material to supplement a joint statement of man-
agers, the Chair announced that the insertion did not constitute a revised
joint statement of managers (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25502).
§ 1081. Unfunded
mandates. Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658–658g) that requires
a committee of conference to ensure that the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office prepares a statement with respect to
unfunded costs of any additional Federal mandate contained in the con-
ference agreement. See § 1127, infra.
8. (a)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph

§ 1082. Layover(2), it shall not be in order to con-
requirements.
sider a conference report until—
(A) the third calendar day (excluding Satur-
days, Sundays, or legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) on
which the conference report and the accom-
panying joint explanatory statement have
been available to Members, Delegates, and the
[910]
Resident Commissioner in the Congressional

Record; and
(B) copies of the conference report and the
accompanying joint explanatory statement
have been available to Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner for at least
two hours.
(2) Subparagraph (1)(A) does not apply during
the last six days of a session of Congress.
The original rule (formerly clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII) requiring that
conference reports be printed in the Record was adopted in 1902 (V, 6516).
The three-day layover requirement, as well as the provisions relating to
the availability of copies of the conference report and the division of time
for debate, were added by section 125(b) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1970 and made part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). The paragraph was amended again the next year
to clarify the manner of counting the three days for the layover period
(H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). In the 104th Congress it was amend-
ed once more to count as a ‘‘calendar day’’ any day on which the House
is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). The paragraph was
amended in the 94th Congress (Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625) to require copies
of conference reports to be available for two hours before consideration
and to allow for the immediate consideration of a resolution from the Com-
mittee on Rules waiving that requirement (clause 8(e)). Before the House
former clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII. At that time the portion of clause 2(a)
permitting immediate consideration of a resolution reported by the Rules
Committee waiving only the layover requirement was transferred to clause
8(e), and the portion of clause 2(a) addressing debate was transferred to
clause 8(d) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
For an example of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee waiving
only the availability requirement of this clause and called up the same
day reported without a two-thirds vote, see August 10, 1984 (p. 23978).
When managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report
is not acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p. 15816).
(b)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2),

it shall not be in order to consider
of amendments in
a motion to dispose of a Senate
disagreement.
amendment reported in disagree-

ment by a conference committee until—
[911]
(A) the third calendar day (excluding Satur-

days, Sundays, or legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) on
which the report in disagreement and any ac-
companying statement have been available to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Com-
missioner in the Congressional Record; and
(B) copies of the report in disagreement and
any accompanying statement, together with
the text of the Senate amendment, have been
available to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner for at least two hours.
(2) Subparagraph (1)(A) does not apply during
the last six days of a session of Congress.
This provision (formerly clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII), relating to the
consideration of amendments reported from conference in disagreement,
was added in 1972 (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) and became
effective at the end of the 92d Congress. In the 94th Congress the provision
was amended to require copies of amendments reported from conference
in disagreement to be available for two hours before consideration and
to allow for the immediate consideration of a resolution from the Committee
on Rules waiving that requirement (H. Res. 868, Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625).
In the 104th Congress the provision was amended to count as a ‘‘calendar
day’’ any day on which the House is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30,
this provision was found in former clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII. At that
time the portion of clause 2(b)(1) addressing debate was transferred to
clause 8(d) of rule XXII, and the portion of clause 2(b)(1) permitting imme-
diate consideration of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee only
waiving the layover requirement was transferred to clause 8(e) of this rule
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Until the adoption of paragraph (b), a report in total disagreement was
not printed in the Record before the amendment in disagreement was again
taken up in the House (VIII, 3299, 3332).
(3) During consideration of a Senate amend-

ment reported in disagreement by a
§ 1084. Certain
motions to insist as
preferential. conference committee on a general
appropriation bill, a motion to insist
[912]
on disagreement to the Senate amendment shall

be preferential to any other motion to dispose of
that amendment if the original motion offered by
the floor manager proposes to change existing
law and the motion to insist is offered before de-
bate on the original motion by the chair of the
committee having jurisdiction of the subject mat-
ter of the amendment or a designee. Such a pref-
erential motion shall be separately debatable for
one hour equally divided between its proponent
and the proponent of the original motion. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the preferential motion to its adoption with-
out intervening motion.
This provision was added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993,
p. 49) to make preferential and separately debatable a motion to insist
on disagreement to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
if: (1) the Senate amendment has been reported from conference in dis-
agreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is offered
in a timely manner by the chair of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(b)(2) of
rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service (now Oversight and Government Reform) has jurisdiction
under clause 1 of rule X over the subject of a Senate legislative amendment
entitling Forest Service employees to separation pay, enabling the chair
of that committee to offer a preferential motion to insist under this clause
(Oct. 20, 1993, p. 25589).
(c) A conference report or a Senate amend-

§ 1085. Certain ment reported in disagreement by a
conference reports
considered as read. conference committee that has been
available as provided in paragraph
(a) or (b) shall be considered as read when called
up.
[913]
Paragraph (c) was added in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979,
pp. 7–16). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 2(c) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(d)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the time al-

§ 1086. Debate. lotted for debate on a conference re-
port or on a motion to dispose of a
Senate amendment reported in disagreement by
a conference committee shall be equally divided
between the majority and minority parties.
(2) If the floor manager for the majority and
the floor manager for the minority both support
the conference report or motion, one-third of the
time for debate thereon shall be allotted to a
who opposes the conference report or motion on
demand of that Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
This provision was adopted in the 99th Congress as former clauses 2(a)
and 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). When the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, those provisions address-
ing debate in clause 2(a) and 2(b)(1) were consolidated into this provision
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Recognition of one Member in opposition does not depend upon party
affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker (Dec. 11, 1985, p.
36069; Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36716; Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31631), who accords pri-
ority in recognition to a member of the conference committee (Speaker
Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516). The Chair will assume that the
minority manager supports a conference report if the manager signed the
report and is not immediately present to claim the contrary (Oct. 12, 1995,
p. 27795). Where the time is divided three ways, the right to close debate
falls to the majority manager calling up the conference report (May 2,
2002, pp. 6624, 6634), preceded by the minority manager, preceded by the
Member in opposition—i.e., the reverse order of the recognition to begin
debate (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19301).
Following rejection of a conference report on a point of order, debate
on a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment remaining in disagree-
ment is evenly divided between the majority and minority under the ration-
ale contained in this provision (Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074–34100). Following
vitiation of a conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII, debate
[914]
on a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amend-

ment also is evenly divided. (Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22409, 22460).
The custom has developed, however, of equally dividing between majority
and minority parties the time on all motions to dispose of amendments
emerging from conference in disagreement, whether reported in disagree-
ment or before the House upon rejection of a conference report by a vote
or a point of order (Speaker Albert, Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 32719–26; Sept.
30, 1976, pp. 34074–34100), upon rejection of an initial motion to dispose
of the amendment (July 2, 1980, pp. 18357–59; Aug. 6, 1993, p. 19582),
upon a motion to concur in a new Senate amendment where the Senate
had receded with an amendment from one of its amendments reported
from conference in disagreement (Mar. 24, 1983, p. 7301), or upon a motion
to dispose of a further stage of amendment that is subsequently before
the House (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22561; Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38360). A Member
offering a preferential motion does not thereby control half of the time,
because all debate is allotted under the original motion (May 14, 1975,
p. 14385). The minority Member in charge controls 30 minutes for debate
only and can only yield to other Members for debate (Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38716).
Where time for debate on such a motion is equally divided, the previous
question may not be moved by the Member first recognized so as to prevent
the Member from the other party from controlling half the debate and
from offering a proper preferential motion to dispose of the Senate amend-
ment (July 2, 1980, p. 18360). The right to close the debate on a motion
to dispose of an amendment where the time is divided three ways falls
to the manager offering the motion (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 30814).
The division of time for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amend-
ment reported from conference in disagreement under this provision does
not extend to separate debate on an amendment thereto, which is governed
by the general hour rule (clause 2 of rule XVII) (Sept. 17, 1992, p. 25437).
(e) Under clause 6(a)(2) of rule XIII, a resolu-

tion proposing only to waive a re-
§ 1087. Waiver.
quirement of this clause concerning

the availability of reports to Members, Dele-
gates, and the Resident Commissioner may be
considered by the House on the same day it is
reported by the Committee on Rules.
This provision was added in the 94th Congress to former clauses 2(a)
and 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII (Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625). When the House recodi-
fied its rules in the 106th Congress, those provisions in former clauses
2(a) and 2(b)(1) permitting immediate consideration of a resolution from
the Committee on Rules only waiving the layover requirement were consoli-
dated into this provision (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[915]
9. Whenever a disagreement to an amendment

§ 1088. Conferees may has been committed to a conference
report germane
modification of committee, the managers on the
amendment in nature
of substitute within
part of the House may propose a
scope of differences. substitute that is a germane modi-
fication of the matter in disagree-
ment. The introduction of any language pre-
senting specific additional matter not committed
to the conference committee by either House
does not constitute a germane modification of
the matter in disagreement. Moreover, a con-
ference report may not include matter not com-
mitted to the conference committee by either
House and may not include a modification of
specific matter committed to the conference com-
mittee by either or both Houses if that modifica-
tion is beyond the scope of that specific matter
as committed to the conference committee.
This provision (formerly clause 3 of rule XXVIII) is derived from section
135(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and
originally was made a part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (p.
24). The clause was revised on January 22, 1971 (p. 144) following the
passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), which
carried a similar provision in section 125(b). Before the House recodified
3 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Where one House strikes out of a bill of the other all after the enacting
clause and inserts a new text, House managers, under the restrictions
of this clause, may not agree to the deletion of certain language committed
to conference if the effect of such deletion results in broadening the scope
of the matter in disagreement (Dec. 14, 1971, p. 46779). Where one House
authorizes certain funds for a fiscal year and the other House authorizes
a lesser amount for that year as well as additional funds for the subsequent
year, and neither version contains an overall amount, House managers
do not exceed their authority under this rule by including in the report
the amount authorized by one House for the first year and the other House
for the subsequent year, even though the total authorization resulting from
this compromise exceeds that possible under either version (June 8, 1972,
p. 20281). Where a House version authorized endowment payments for
[916]
certain colleges and the Senate version conferred land-grant college status
on those institutions and contained a higher endowment figure, House con-
ferees remained within their authority under this clause by accepting the
Senate provision on land-grant status and the lower House figure for en-
dowment payments (Speaker Albert, June 8, 1972, p. 20280). Where the
House version of a bill contained provisions for local funding of merit
schools, but neither version contained a provision for State funding, a mo-
tion to recommit to conference with instructions to provide State funding
for merit schools was held to exceed the scope of the differences committed
to conference (Sept. 30, 1992, p. 29126). A conference report containing
a provision that the joint statement of managers described as having no
counterpart in either the House bill or Senate amendment was held to
exceed scope (Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22408, 22409).
Although the scope of differences committed to conference—where one
House has amended an existing law and the other House has implicitly
taken the position of existing law by remaining silent on the subject—
may properly be measured between those issues presented in the amending
language and comparable provisions of existing law, the inclusion in a
conference report of new matter not specifically contained in the amending
version and not demonstrably contained in existing law may be ruled out
as an additional issue not committed to conference in violation of this clause
(Speaker Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). Thus where one House has
amended an existing law and the other House has implicitly taken the
position of existing law by only authorizing sums for the purpose of existing
law, the scope of differences committed to conference may be measured
between issues presented in the amending language and relevant provi-
sions of the existing law; but the inclusion in a conference report of require-
ments and issues incorporated into existing law that were not contained
in either version and that are not repetitive of existing law may be ruled
out in violation of this paragraph (Speaker O’Neill, Oct. 14, 1977, pp.
33770–73).
A mere change in phraseology in a conference report (from language
in either the House or Senate version) may be permitted to achieve legisla-
tive consistency where it is not shown that its effect is to broaden the
scope of the language beyond the differences committed to conference, as
where the report waives provisions of law for all programs in the bill and
the House version waives those provisions for one section of the bill only
(the Senate having no comparable provision) but the scope of programs
covered by the report was coextensive with those in the designated section
of the House version (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12752). The conferees
may include language clarifying and limiting the duties imposed on an
official by one House’s version where that modification does not expand
the authority conferred in that version or contained in existing law (the
position of the other House) (Speaker Albert, July 29, 1975, p. 25515) and
may confer broader authority on an official than that contained in one
House’s version if such authority is coextensive with the authority con-
[917]
tained in existing law that the other House has retained (Apr. 13, 1976,
p. 10803). Where the Senate version authorized citizen suits to enforce
existing law except where Federal officials were pursuing enforcement pro-
ceedings and the House version, with no comparable provision, retained
existing law that did not permit such suits, the conferees exceeded the
scope of the differences by further prohibiting citizen suits where State
officials were pursuing enforcement proceedings—a new exception allowing
State preemption of citizen suits (Sept. 27, 1976, p. 33019). A point of
order was sustained against a motion to instruct conferees that directed
them to agree to matter violating this clause: the House bill created an
energy trust fund composed of certain revenues to be distributed by subse-
quent legislation; the Senate amendment created a similar trust fund with
suggested but not mandated distribution, and the motion directed House
conferees to insist on a mandatory allocation of revenues in question among
specified purposes, some of which were not addressed in the Senate amend-
ment (Feb. 28, 1980, p. 4304).
Before the revision of this clause in 1971, where one House struck out
of a bill of the other all after the enacting clause and inserted a new text,
conferees could discard language occurring both in the bill and substitute
(VIII, 3266) and exercise broad discretion in incorporating germane amend-
ments (VIII, 3263–3265), even to the extent of reporting a new bill germane
to the subject (V, 6421, 6423, 6424; VIII, 3248). However, the present lan-
guage of the rule prohibits the inclusion in a conference report or in a
motion to instruct House conferees of additional topics not committed to
conference by either House or beyond the scope of the differences committed
to conference; and the precedents predating the adoption of this clause
in 1971 must be read in light of the explicit restrictions now contained
in the clause (Sept. 27, 1976, p. 32719). As such, a conference report may
not include a new topic or issue that, although germane, was not committed
to conference by either House (Mar. 25, 1992, p. 6843; Apr. 9, 1992, p.
9022). For example, a motion to instruct conferees on a general appropria-
tion bill may not instruct the conferees to include either a funding limita-
tion (Sept. 13, 1994, p. 24402) or a change in income tax law (Nov. 8,
2005, pp. 25322, 25323 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 7, 2005, p.
27706) not contained in the House bill or Senate amendment. Such motion
also may not instruct managers to include funding for a program above
both of the respective amounts in the House bill and Senate amendment
for that program (Dec. 7, 2005, pp. 27706, 27707 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)). Similarly, a motion to recommit a conference report may not
instruct conferees to expand definitions to include classes not covered
under the House bill or Senate amendment (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781) or
to include provisions not contained in the House bill or Senate amendment
(Dec. 21, 1995, p. 38138). A waiver of all points of order against a conference
report to accompany a measure and against its consideration does not inure
to instructions contained in a motion to recommit such measure to con-
ference (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781). Some latitude does remain with House
[918]
managers to eliminate specific words or phrases contained in either version

and add words or phrases not included in either version so long as they
remain within the scope of the differences committed to conference and
do not incorporate additional topics, issues, or propositions not committed
to conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, pp. 33020–23).
For a discussion of the remedy where managers exceed their authority,
see § 547, supra.
10. (a)(1) A Member, Delegate, or Resident

§ 1089. Nongermane Commissioner may raise a point of
matter in conference
agreements and order against nongermane matter,
amendments in
disagreement.
as specified in subparagraph (2), be-
fore the commencement of debate
on—
(A) a conference report;
(B) a motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment reported
in disagreement by a conference committee
and concur therein, with or without amend-
ment; or
(C) a motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment on
which the stage of disagreement has been
reached and concur therein, with or without
amendment.
(2) A point of order against nongermane mat-
ter is one asserting that a proposition described
in subparagraph (1) contains specified matter
that would violate clause 7 of rule XVI if it were
offered in the House as an amendment to the
underlying measure in the form it was passed by
the House.
(b) If a point of order under paragraph (a) is
sustained, a motion that the House reject the
nongermane matter identified by the point of
order shall be privileged. Such a motion is de-
[919]
batable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the

motion and one-half in opposition thereto.
(c) After disposition of a point of order under
paragraph (a) or a motion to reject under para-
graph (b), any further points of order under
paragraph (a) not covered by a previous point of
order, and any consequent motions to reject
under paragraph (b), shall be likewise disposed
of.
(d)(1) If a motion to reject under paragraph (b)
is adopted, then after disposition of all points of
order under paragraph (a) and any consequent
motions to reject under paragraph (b), the con-
ference report or motion, as the case may be,
shall be considered as rejected and the matter
remaining in disagreement shall be disposed of
under subparagraph (2) or (3), as the case may
be.
(2) After the House has adopted one or more
motions to reject nongermane matter contained
in a conference report under the preceding provi-
sions of this clause—
(A) if the conference report accompanied a
House measure amended by the Senate, the
pending question shall be whether the House
shall recede and concur in the Senate amend-
ment with an amendment consisting of so
much of the conference report as was not re-
jected; and
(B) if the conference report accompanied a
Senate measure amended by the House, the
pending question shall be whether the House
shall insist further on the House amendment.
[920]
(3) After the House has adopted one or more

motions to reject nongermane matter contained
in a motion that the House recede and concur in
a Senate amendment, with or without amend-
ment, the following motions shall be privileged
and shall have precedence in the order stated:
(A) A motion that the House recede and con-
cur in the Senate amendment with an amend-
ment in writing then available on the floor.
(B) A motion that the House insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and
request a further conference with the Senate.
(C) A motion that the House insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment.
(e) If, on a division of the question on a motion
described in paragraph (a)(1)(B) or (C), the
House agrees to recede, then a Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner may raise a
point of order against nongermane matter, as
specified in paragraph (a)(2), before the com-
mencement of debate on concurring in the Sen-
ate amendment, with or without amendment. A
point of order under this paragraph shall be dis-
posed of according to the preceding provisions of
this clause in the same manner as a point of
order under paragraph (a).
The provision (formerly clause 4 of rule XXVIII) addressing nongermane
matter in conference reports was included as part of the revision of former
rules XX and XXVIII that took place effective at the end of the 92d Congress
(H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). The same resolution repealed the
former clause 3 of rule XX, which had been enacted as part of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1970 to restrict the authority of House conferees
to agree without prior permission of the House to Senate amendments
that would violate clause 7 of rule XVI if offered in the House. The provision
(formerly clause 5 of rule XXVIII) addressing nongermane matter in
[921]
amendments in disagreement was added on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998,

93d Cong., pp. 10195–99, which deleted from clause 1 of rule XX and trans-
ferred to former clause 5 of rule XXVIII the procedures concerning disposi-
tion of Senate nongermane amendments). The provision was amended on
April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong., pp. 10195–99) in order to make
this clause applicable to matters originally contained in Senate bills sent
to conference, and not merely to Senate amendments to House bills in
conference. The provision was further amended in the 96th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16) to provide that if the conference report
is considered read under this rule, a point of order under this clause must
be made immediately upon consideration of the conference report. When
the House recodified its rules, it consolidated former clauses 4 and 5 of
rule XXVIII under this clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The procedure provided in this clause for addressing nongermane matter
§ 1090. Nongermane
in conference reports was first utilized on September
matter in conference 11, 1973 (pp. 29243–46), when the Chair sustained two
agreements. points of order against portions of a conference report
that were modifications of portions of a Senate amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute not germane to a House bill. If any
motion to reject is adopted under this clause and the matter then pending
before the House consists of numbered Senate amendments in disagree-
ment, the pending question is whether to dispose of each Senate amend-
ment not rejected as recommended in the conference report and to insist
on disagreement to those amendments that have been rejected.
Where a point of order against a portion of a conference report has been
sustained under this clause, the Speaker will not entertain another point
of order against the report or against another portion thereof until a motion
to reject the portion held nongermane (if made) has been disposed of
(Speaker Albert, Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671). The Member representing the
conference committee in opposition to a motion to reject under this clause,
and not the proponent of the motion, has the right to close debate thereon
(Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31502).
Once a motion to reject a nongermane portion has been adopted by the
House and the Speaker has recognized a Member to offer a motion com-
prising the pending question under this clause, the report is rejected and
it is too late to make a point of order against the entire conference report
under clause 9 (formerly clause 3) of this rule (Speaker Albert, Dec. 15,
1975, p. 40671).
Where possible, the Speaker rules on points of order against conference
reports that, if sustained, will vitiate the entire conference report (as under
clause 9 of this rule or under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) before
entertaining points of order under this clause (Speaker Albert, Sept. 23,
1976, p. 32099).
[922]
The provisions of this clause addressing nongermane matter in amend-

§ 1091. Nongermane
ments in disagreement was first utilized on July 31,
matter in amendments 1974 (p. 26083), when the Chair sustained a point of
in disagreement. order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur
in a Senate amendment (reported from conference in
disagreement) with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion
of the Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to
the House-passed measure, and a motion rejecting that portion of the mo-
tion to recede and concur with an amendment was offered and defeated.
This clause is not applicable to a provision contained in a motion to recede
and concur with an amendment that was not contained in any form in
the Senate version and that is not therefore a modification of the Senate
provision, the only requirement in such circumstances being that the mo-
tion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under
clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33502; June 30, 1987, p. 18294).
A point of order under clause 4 (formerly clause 5(a)) of rule XXI (appropria-
tions on a legislative bill) against a motion to dispose of a Senate amend-
ment in disagreement (as by concurring therein with a House amendment
carrying an appropriation) which, if sustained, would vitiate the entire
motion, must be disposed of before a point of order against a nongermane
amendment in disagreement under this clause which, if sustained, would
merely permit a separate vote on rejection of that portion of the motion
(Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638–42).
11. It shall not be in order to consider a con-

ference report to accompany a bill
§ 1092. Tax complexity
analysis.
or joint resolution that proposes to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 un-
less—
(a) the joint explanatory statement of the
managers includes a tax complexity analysis
prepared by the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation in accordance with section
4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Re-
structuring and Reform Act of 1998; or
(b) the chair of the Committee on Ways and
Means causes such a tax complexity analysis
to be printed in the Congressional Record be-
fore consideration of the conference report.
[923]
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998

(sec. 4022, P.L. 105–206) added this provision as a new clause 7 of rule
XXVIII. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). When the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was transferred to clause 11
of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
12. (a)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), a meet-

§ 1093. Open ing of each conference committee
conference meetings.
shall be open to the public.
(2) In open session of the House, a motion that
managers on the part of the House be permitted
to close to the public a meeting or meetings of
their conference committee shall be privileged,
shall be decided without debate, and shall be de-
cided by the yeas and nays.
(3) In conducting conferences with the Senate,
managers on the part of the House should en-
deavor to ensure—
(A) that meetings for the resolution of dif-
ferences between the two Houses occur only
under circumstances in which every manager
on the part of the House has notice of the
meeting and a reasonable opportunity to at-
tend;
(B) that all provisions on which the two
Houses disagree are considered as open to dis-
cussion at any meeting of a conference com-
mittee; and
(C) that papers reflecting a conference
agreement are held inviolate to change with-
out renewal of the opportunity of all managers
on the part of the House to reconsider their
decisions to sign or not to sign the agreement.
[924]
(4) Managers on the part of the House shall be

provided a unitary time and place with access to
at least one complete copy of the final conference
agreement for the purpose of recording their ap-
proval (or not) of the final conference agreement
by placing their signatures (or not) on the sheets
prepared to accompany the conference report
and joint explanatory statement of the man-
agers.
(b) A point of order that a conference com-
mittee failed to comply with paragraph (a) may
be raised immediately after the conference re-
port is read or considered as read. If such a
point of order is sustained, the conference report
shall be considered as rejected, the House shall
be considered to have insisted on its amend-
ments or on disagreement to the Senate amend-
ments, as the case may be, and to have re-
quested a further conference with the Senate,
and the Speaker may appoint new conferees
without intervening motion.
This clause as originally added to former rule XXVIII on January 14,
1975 (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 20) provided that conference committee
meetings be open except where a majority of the managers of the House
or Senate voted to close the meeting, and provided that the clause not
become effective until the Senate adopted a similar rule. The Senate adopt-
ed an identical rule on November 5, 1975 (p. 35203). The clause was sub-
stantially changed on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53–
70) to require that conference meetings be open except where the House
by record vote determines that a meeting may be closed, to allow a point
of order against a conference report where the conferees have violated this
clause, and to provide for subsequent disposition of the matter reported
from conference should such a point of order be sustained. It was further
amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16) to provide
that if the conference report is considered read under this rule, a point
of order under this clause must be made immediately upon consideration
of the conference report. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
[925]
Congress, the former version of this provision was found in former clause
6 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 108th Congress
the record vote by which the motion is to be decided was particularized
to be by the yeas and nays (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Subpara-
graphs (a)(3) and (4) were added in the 110th Congress (sec. 303(a), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
At any time after a bill has been sent to conference, a motion pursuant
to this clause authorizing a conference committee to close its meetings
to the public is privileged for consideration in the House and must be
voted on by a record vote (now the yeas and nays) (Speaker O’Neill, May
23, 1977, pp. 15880–84; Apr. 13, 1978, p. 10128). Although a motion to
close a conference committee meeting ‘‘to the public’’ would, under the
precedents (see V, 6254, fn. 1), exclude Members who were not conferees,
a motion may be offered as privileged under this clause to authorize a
conference committee to close its meetings to the public, except to Members
of Congress (Speaker O’Neill, May 23, 1977, pp. 15880–84).
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that, under
the rules and precedents of the House, a conference report must be the
product of an actual meeting of the managers appointed by the two Houses
(Oct. 30, 2003, p. 26413, p. 26443). Although the Chair does not normally
look behind signatures of conferees to determine the propriety of conference
procedure, if proposed conferees have signed a conference report before
they have been formally appointed in both Houses and do not meet formally
in open session after such appointment, the conference report is subject
to a point of order under this clause resulting in an automatic request
for a further conference (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896). Also, conferees on the
part of the House are entitled to reasonable notice of and opportunity to
attend a meeting of the conference committee (July 20, 2000, p. 15657).
The adoption of paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) in the 110th Congress imposed
additional considerations on conference committees. However, a point of
order will not lie against a conference report called up under an order
of the House that has waived all points of order against consideration of
the conference report (July 20, 2000, p. 15654; Oct. 30, 2003, p. 26452).
Clause 11(k) of rule X provides that this provision does not apply to
conference committee meetings respecting legislation (or any part thereof)
reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
13. It shall not be in order to consider a con-

ference report the text of which dif-
§ 1094. Text of
conference reports.
fers in any way, other than clerical,
from the text that reflects the action of the con-
ferees on all of the differences between the two
Houses, as recorded by their placement of their
signatures (or not) on the sheets prepared to ac-
[926]
Rule XXIII § 1095
company the conference report and joint explan-

atory statement of the managers.
This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 303(b), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
RULE XXIII
CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
There is hereby established by and for the

House the following code of conduct, to be known
as the ‘‘Code of Official Conduct’’:
§ 1095. Official sioner, officer, or employee of the
conduct of Members,
officers, or employees House shall behave at all times
of the House.
in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House.
adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules
of the House and to the rules of duly con-
stituted committees thereof.
sioner, officer, or employee of the House may
not receive compensation and may not permit
compensation to accrue to the beneficial inter-
est of such individual from any source, the re-
ceipt of which would occur by virtue of influ-
ence improperly exerted from the position of
such individual in Congress.
not accept gifts except as provided by clause 5
of rule XXV.
[927]
§ 1095 Rule XXIII

not accept an honorarium for a speech, a writ-
ing for publication, or other similar activity,
except as otherwise provided under rule XXV.
6. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner—
(a) shall keep the campaign funds of such
individual separate from the personal funds
of such individual;
(b) may not convert campaign funds to
personal use in excess of an amount rep-
resenting reimbursement for legitimate and
verifiable campaign expenditures; and
(c) except as provided in clause 1(b) of
rule XXIV, may not expend funds from a
campaign account of such individual that
are not attributable to bona fide campaign
or political purposes.
missioner shall treat as campaign contribu-
tions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or
other fund-raising events.
8. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, or officer of the House may not re-
tain an employee who does not perform duties
for the offices of the employing authority com-
mensurate with the compensation such em-
ployee receives.
(b) In the case of a committee employee who
works under the direct supervision of a mem-
ber of the committee other than a chair, the
chair may require that such member affirm in
[928]
Rule XXIII § 1095
writing that the employee has complied with

clause 8(a) (subject to clause 9 of rule X) as
evidence of compliance by the chair with this
clause and with clause 9 of rule X.
(c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph
(2)—
(A) a Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner may not retain the spouse of such
individual in a paid position; and
(B) an employee of the House may not ac-
cept compensation for work for a committee
on which the spouse of such employee serves
as a member.
(2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply in the
case of a spouse whose pertinent employment
predates the One Hundred Seventh Congress.
not discharge and may not refuse to hire an
individual, or otherwise discriminate against
an individual with respect to compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of the race, color, religion, sex (includ-
ing marital or parental status), disability, age,
or national origin of such individual, but may
take into consideration the domicile or polit-
ical affiliation of such individual.
missioner who has been convicted by a court
of record for the commission of a crime for
which a sentence of two or more years’ impris-
onment may be imposed should refrain from
participation in the business of each com-
[929]
§ 1095 Rule XXIII
mittee of which such individual is a member,

and a Member should refrain from voting on
any question at a meeting of the House or of
the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, unless or until judicial or
executive proceedings result in reinstatement
of the presumption of the innocence of such
Member or until the Member is reelected to
the House after the date of such conviction.
missioner may not authorize or otherwise
allow an individual, group, or organization not
under the direction and control of the House
to use the words ‘‘Congress of the United
States,’’ ‘‘House of Representatives,’’ or ‘‘Offi-
cial Business,’’ or any combination of words
thereof, on any letterhead or envelope.
12. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b),
an employee of the House who is required to
file a report under rule XXVI may not partici-
pate personally and substantially as an em-
ployee of the House in a contact with an agen-
cy of the executive or judicial branches of Gov-
ernment with respect to nonlegislative matters
affecting any nongovernmental person in
which the employee has a significant financial
interest.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply if an em-
ployee first advises the employing authority of
such employee of a significant financial inter-
est described in paragraph (a) and obtains
from such employing authority a written waiv-
er stating that the participation of the em-
[930]
Rule XXIII § 1095
ployee in the activity described in paragraph

(a) is necessary. A copy of each such waiver
shall be filed with the Committee on Ethics.
13. Before a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House may have access to classified informa-
tion, the following oath (or affirmation) shall
be executed:
‘‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
not disclose any classified information re-
ceived in the course of my service with the
House of Representatives, except as author-
ized by the House of Representatives or in
accordance with its Rules.’’
Copies of the executed oath (or affirmation)
shall be retained by the Clerk as part of the
records of the House. The Clerk shall make
the signatories a matter of public record, caus-
ing the names of each Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner who has signed the
oath during a week (if any) to be published in
a portion of the Congressional Record des-
ignated for that purpose on the last legislative
day of the week and making cumulative lists
of such names available each day for public in-
spection in an appropriate office of the House.
missioner may not, with the intent to influ-
ence on the basis of partisan political affili-
ation an employment decision or employment
practice of any private entity—
(a) take or withhold, or offer or threaten
to take or withhold, an official act; or
[931]
§ 1095 Rule XXIII
(b) influence, or offer or threaten to influ-

ence, the official act of another.
15. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b),
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner may not use personal funds, official
funds, or campaign funds for a flight on an
aircraft.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply if—
(1) the aircraft is operated by an air car-
rier or commercial operator certificated by
the Federal Aviation Administration and the
flight is required to be conducted under air
carrier safety rules, or, in the case of travel
which is abroad, by an air carrier or com-
mercial operator certificated by an appro-
priate foreign civil aviation authority and
the flight is required to be conducted under
air carrier safety rules;
(2) the aircraft is owned or leased by a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner
or a family member of a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner (including an air-
craft owned by an entity that is not a public
corporation in which the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner or a family member
of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner has an ownership interest, provided
that such Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner does not use the aircraft any
more than the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or family member’s propor-
tionate share of ownership allows);
[932]
Rule XXIII § 1095
(3) the flight consists of the personal use

of an aircraft by a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner that is supplied by
an individual on the basis of personal
friendship; or
(4) the aircraft is operated by an entity of
the Federal government or an entity of the
government of any State.
(c) In this clause—
(1) the term ‘‘campaign funds’’ includes
funds of any political committee under the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,
without regard to whether the committee is
an authorized committee of the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in-
volved under such Act;
(2) the term ‘‘family member’’ means an
individual who is related to the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as fa-
ther, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister,
husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-
law; and
(3) the term ‘‘on the basis of personal
friendship’’ has the same meaning as in
clause 5 of rule XXV and shall be deter-
mined as under clause 5(a)(3)(D)(ii) of rule
XXV.
missioner may not condition the inclusion of
language to provide funding for a congres-
sional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a lim-
ited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution
(or an accompanying report) or in any con-
[933]
§ 1095 Rule XXIII
ference report on a bill or joint resolution (in-

cluding an accompanying joint explanatory
statement of managers) on any vote cast by
another Member, Delegate, or Resident Com-
missioner. For purposes of this clause and
clause 17, the terms ‘‘congressional earmark,’’
‘‘limited tax benefit,’’ and ‘‘limited tariff ben-
efit’’ shall have the meanings given them in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
17. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who requests a congressional
earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited
tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or
an accompanying report) or in any conference
report on a bill or joint resolution (or an ac-
companying joint statement of managers) shall
provide a written statement to the chair and
ranking minority member of the committee of
jurisdiction, including—
(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner;
(2) in the case of a congressional earmark,
the name and address of the intended re-
cipient or, if there is no specifically intended
recipient, the intended location of the activ-
ity;
(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff
benefit, identification of the individual or
entities reasonably anticipated to benefit, to
the extent known to the Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner;
(4) the purpose of such congressional ear-
mark or limited tax or tariff benefit; and
[934]
Rule XXIII § 1095
(5) a certification that the Member, Dele-

gate, or Resident Commissioner or spouse
has no financial interest in such congres-
sional earmark or limited tax or tariff ben-
efit.
(b) Each committee shall maintain the infor-
mation transmitted under paragraph (a), and
the written disclosures for any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tar-
iff benefits included in any measure reported
by the committee or conference report filed by
the chair of the committee or any sub-
committee thereof shall be open for public in-
spection.
18. (a) In this Code of Official Conduct, the
term ‘‘officer or employee of the House’’ means
an individual whose compensation is dis-
bursed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
(b) An individual whose services are com-
pensated by the House pursuant to a consult-
ant contract shall be considered an employee
of the House for purposes of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4,
8, 9, and 13 of this rule. An individual whose
services are compensated by the House pursu-
ant to a consultant contract may not lobby the
contracting committee or the members or staff
of the contracting committee on any matter.
Such an individual may lobby other Members,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner or
staff of the House on matters outside the ju-
risdiction of the contracting committee. In the
case of such an individual who is a member or
employee of a firm, partnership, or other busi-
[935]
§ 1095 Rule XXIII
ness organization, the other members and em-

ployees of the firm, partnership, or other busi-
ness organization shall be subject to the same
restrictions on lobbying that apply to the indi-
vidual under this paragraph.
This rule was transferred from rule XLIII to rule XXIV when the House
It was redesignated as rule XXIII in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(s), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). The rule was originally adopted in the 90th Congress
(H. Res. 1099, Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8803). The jurisdiction of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) was redefined in the same
resolution. Clause 4 was entirely rewritten (and definitions for the purpose
of clause 4 were deleted) in the 104th Congress to reflect the adoption
of a Gift Rule (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Before the 104th
Congress, clause 4 had been amended in the 95th Congress to change the
prohibition against acceptance of gifts of ‘‘substantial value’’ (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 1975, p. 20) and definitions for purposes of clause 4 were added
in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933–53). Those defini-
tions were amended in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to make conforming
changes in the definition of ‘‘relative’’ (P.L. 101–194). Clause 4 was also
amended: (1) in the 100th Congress to increase from $35 to $50 the value
of personal hospitality of an individual that is not to be counted when
computing the aggregate amount of gifts per calendar year (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6); and (2) in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to revise
the rules governing the acceptance of gifts, including value thresholds and
waivers (P.L. 101–194). Those threshold and aggregate values were again
adjusted by section 314(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 1992 (P.L. 102–90). The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L.
101–194) amended clause 5 to prohibit the acceptance of honoraria. Clause
6 was amended in the 95th Congress to delete from the second sentence
the exception ‘‘unless specifically provided by law,’’ which had been added
in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1975, p. 20) and was again amended
in the 109th Congress to conform it to the change in clause 1 of rule XXIV
to permit campaign funds to be used to defray certain official expenses
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Clause 6 was also amended by
the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101–194) to specify that campaign
funds be used only for bona fide campaign or political purposes. Clause
7 was amended in the 95th Congress to eliminate an exception permitting
sponsors to give notice of purpose (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1975, p. 20). The
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101–194) amended clause 8 to broaden
Members’ accountability for the pay and performance of staff. Clause 8
was again amended in the 106th Congress to permit telecommuting by
House employees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clause 8(c) was added
in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Clause
[936]
Rule XXIII § 1095
9 was added in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). Clause
9 was amended in the 100th Congress to prohibit discrimination in employ-
ment based upon age (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) and again in the 101st
Congress to conform existing staff antidiscrimination rules to the Fair Em-
ployment Practices resolution adopted in the 100th Congress (now con-
tained in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–1; 2 U.S.C.
1301; see § 1101, infra)). Clause 10 was added in the 94th Congress (H.
Res. 46, Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10340). Clause 11 was added in the 96th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16). Clause 12 was added by the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101–194) to proscribe certain contacts as involving
conflicts of interest. Clause 13 was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 220,
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), except the last sentence, which was added
in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Clause
13 was amended in the 112th Congress to clarify that it does not require
the disclosure of actual signatures (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
l). Clause 18 (which was an undesignated paragraph at the end of the
rule before being numbered as clause 14 when the rules were recodified
in the 106th Congress) was amended in the 92d Congress to bring the
Delegates and Resident Commissioner within the definition of ‘‘Member’’
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144; H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36021–
23). It was again amended in the 106th Congress to include consultants
among employees covered by certain provisions of the code of conduct (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47) and in the 107th Congress to add the last
two sentences of paragraph (b) (sec. 2(v), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24).
Paragraph (b) was amended during the 110th Congress with regard to
firms, partnerships, and other business organizations (sec. 303, P.L. 110–
81). In the 105th Congress the rule was amended to effect three clerical
corrections (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121); in the 106th Congress clerical
and stylistic changes were effected when the rules were recodified (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); in the 107th Congress conforming changes were
made to reflect the redesignation of several rules (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 24) and a clerical correction to a cross reference in clause 8(b)
was effected (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26); and in the 112th
Congress a technical change was made (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l). Clauses 14 through 17 were added in the 110th Congress (secs.
202, 207, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19; sec. 404(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Clause 15 was amended in its entirety
during the 110th Congress (H. Res. 363, May 2, 2007, p. 11119). Gender-
based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). An amendment was effected in the 112th Congress
to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l).
For an in-depth discussion of this rule prepared by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics), see the House Ethics Manual
(110th Cong., 2d Sess.).
[937]
§ 1096 Rule XXIV, clause 1
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to interpret

the application of a criminal statute to a Member’s conduct, because it
is for the House and not the Chair to judge the conduct of Members (Nov.
17, 1987, p. 32153). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair
advised that the operation of clause 16 was not affected by a special order
of the House waiving various points of order against a measure and against
its consideration (Mar. 23, 2007, p. 7457). The Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct opined that ‘‘conviction’’ in clause 10 includes a plea
of guilty or a certified finding of guilty even though sentencing may occur
later (H. Rept. 94–76).
RULE XXIV
LIMITATIONS ON USE OF OFFICIAL FUNDS
Limitations on use of official and unofficial

accounts
1. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a
§ 1096. Limitation on Member, Delegate, or Resident
accounts.
Commissioner may not maintain, or
have maintained for the use of such individual,
an unofficial office account. Funds may not be
paid into an unofficial office account.
(b)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2),
may defray official expenses with funds of the
principal campaign committee of such individual
under the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.).
(2) The funds specified in subparagraph (1)
may not be used to defray official expenses for
mail or other communications, compensation for
services, office space, office furniture, office
equipment, or any associated information tech-
nology services (excluding handheld communica-
tions devices).
[938]
Rule XXIV, clause 3 § 1096
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

rule, if an amount from the Official Expenses Al-
lowance of a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner is paid into the House Recording
Studio revolving fund for telecommunications
satellite services, the Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner may accept reimbursement
from nonpolitical entities in that amount for
transmission to the Clerk for credit to the Offi-
cial Expenses Allowance.
3. In this rule the term ‘‘unofficial office ac-
count’’ means an account or repository in which
funds are received for the purpose of defraying
otherwise unreimbursed expenses allowable
under section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as ordinary and necessary in the
operation of a congressional office, and includes
a newsletter fund referred to in section 527(g) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
This provision (formerly rule XLV) was adopted in the 95th Congress
(H. Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933–53). It was amended in the 102d
Congress to permit Members to receive reimbursements to their expense
allowances for recording studio charges attributable to nonpolitical organi-
zations receiving the transmissions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). When
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former
rules XLV and XLVI under clauses 1 through 9 of rule XXV and the second
sentence of former clause 8 of rule I and former clauses 2(n)(5) and 5(e)
of rule XI under clause 10 of rule XXV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
This rule was redesignated as rule XXIV in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(s),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). In the 109th Congress clause 1 was amended
to permit campaign funds to be used to defray certain official expenses
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). In the 111th Congress a technical
correction to clause 1(b)(2) was effected and gender-based references in
clause 1 were eliminated (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
[939]
Limitations on use of the frank

4. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
§ 1097. Limitations on sioner shall mail franked mail
use of frank.
under section 3210(d) of title 39,
United States Code at the most economical rate
of postage practicable.
5. Before making a mass mailing, a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall sub-
mit a sample or description of the mail matter
involved to the House Commission on Congres-
sional Mailing Standards for an advisory opinion
as to whether the proposed mailing is in compli-
ance with applicable provisions of law, rule, or
regulation.
6. A mass mailing that is otherwise frankable
by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commis-
sioner under the provisions of section 3210(e) of
title 39, United States Code, is not frankable un-
less the cost of preparing and printing it is de-
frayed exclusively from funds made available in
an appropriation Act.
sioner may not send a mass mailing outside the
congressional district from which elected.
8. In the case of a Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner, a mass mailing is not frank-
able under section 3210 of title 39, United
States Code, when it is postmarked less than 90
days before the date of a primary or general
election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in
which such individual is a candidate for public
office. If the mail matter is of a type that is not
customarily postmarked, the date on which it
[940]
Rule XXIV, clause 9 § 1097
would have been postmarked, if it were of a type

customarily postmarked, applies.
9. In this rule the term ‘‘mass mailing’’ means,
with respect to a session of Congress, a mailing
of newsletters or other pieces of mail with sub-
stantially identical content (whether such pieces
of mail are deposited singly or in bulk, or at the
same time or different times), totaling more
than 500 pieces of mail in that session, except
that such term does not include a mailing—
(a) of matter in direct response to a commu-
nication from a person to whom the matter is
mailed;
(b) from a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner to other Members, Delegates,
the Resident Commissioner, or Senators, or to
Federal, State, or local government officials; or
(c) of a news release to the communications
media.
This provision (formerly rule XLVI) was adopted in the 95th Congress
(H. Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933–53). In the 102d Congress it was
extensively amended to conform to restrictions on franking and mass mail-
ings included in the legislative branch appropriations acts for fiscal years
1990 and 1991 (P.L. 101–163 and 101–520, respectively) (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1991, p. 39). Clause 7 (formerly clause 4) was rewritten in the 103d
Congress to conform to the statutory prohibition against mass mailings
outside the congressional district from which a Member was elected. Before
found in former rule XLVI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th
Congress clause 8 was amended to expand the window during which a
mass mailing is not frankable to 90 days before the date of an election
(from 60 days), thereby conforming the rule to section 3210 of title 39,
United States Code (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Gender-based
6, 2009, p. l).
[941]
Prohibition on use of funds by Members not

elected to succeeding Congress
10. Funds from the applicable accounts de-
§ 1098. Travel by scribed in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X,
Members not
reelected. including funds from committee ex-
pense resolutions, and funds in any
local currencies owned by the United States may
not be made available for travel by a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator
after the date of a general election in which such
individual was not elected to the succeeding
Congress or, in the case of a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner who is not a can-
didate in a general election, after the earlier of
the date of such general election or the adjourn-
ment sine die of the last regular session of the
Congress.
This provision was added in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 287, Mar. 2,
1977, p. 5941). In the 105th and 106th Congresses this clause was amended
to update archaic references to the ‘‘contingent fund’’ (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7,
1997, p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). When the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated the second sentence of
former clause 8 of rule I and former clauses 2(n)(5) and 5(e) of rule XI
under clause 10 of former rule XXV (redesignated as rule XXIV in the
107th Congress) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Conforming changes were
effected in the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). A gender-based
6, 2009, p. l).
[942]
Rule XXV, clause 1 § 1099
RULE XXV
LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS
Outside earned income; honoraria

1. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), a
§ 1099. Income Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
limitations.
missioner, officer, or employee of
the House may not—
(1) have outside earned income attributable
to a calendar year that exceeds 15 percent of
the annual rate of basic pay for level II of the
Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title
5, United States Code, as of January 1 of that
calendar year; or
(2) receive any honorarium, except that an
officer or employee of the House who is paid
at a rate less than 120 percent of the min-
imum rate of basic pay for GS–15 of the Gen-
eral Schedule may receive an honorarium un-
less the subject matter is directly related to
the official duties of the individual, the pay-
ment is made because of the status of the indi-
vidual with the House, or the person offering
the honorarium has interests that may be sub-
stantially affected by the performance or non-
performance of the official duties of the indi-
vidual.
(b) In the case of an individual who becomes
a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, of-
ficer, or employee of the House, such individual
may not have outside earned income attrib-
utable to the portion of a calendar year that oc-
[943]
§ 1099 Rule XXV, clause 2
curs after such individual becomes a Member,

Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or em-
ployee that exceeds 15 percent of the annual
rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive
Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United
States Code, as of January 1 of that calendar
year multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of
which is the number of days the individual is a
cer, or employee during that calendar year and
the denominator of which is 365.
(c) A payment in lieu of an honorarium that is
made to a charitable organization on behalf of a
cer, or employee of the House may not be re-
ceived by that Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee. Such a payment
may not exceed $2,000 or be made to a chari-
table organization from which the Member, Del-
ployee or a parent, sibling, spouse, child, or de-
pendent relative of the Member, Delegate, Resi-
dent Commissioner, officer, or employee, derives
a financial benefit.
not—
(a) receive compensation for affiliating with
or being employed by a firm, partnership, as-
sociation, corporation, or other entity that pro-
vides professional services involving a fidu-
ciary relationship except for the practice of
medicine;
[944]
(b) permit the name of such individual to be

used by such a firm, partnership, association,
corporation, or other entity;
(c) receive compensation for practicing a pro-
fession that involves a fiduciary relationship
except for the practice of medicine;
(d) serve for compensation as an officer or
member of the board of an association, cor-
poration, or other entity; or
(e) receive compensation for teaching, with-
out the prior notification and approval of the
Committee on Ethics.
Copyright royalties
3. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House may not
receive an advance payment on copyright royal-
ties. This paragraph does not prohibit a literary
agent, researcher, or other individual (other
than an individual employed by the House or a
relative of a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee) working on be-
half of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee with respect to a
publication from receiving an advance payment
of a copyright royalty directly from a publisher
and solely for the benefit of that literary agent,
researcher, or other individual.
(b) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
receive copyright royalties under a contract en-
tered into on or after January 1, 1996, unless
that contract is first approved by the Committee
[945]
on Ethics as complying with the requirement of

clause 4(d)(1)(E) (that royalties are received
from an established publisher under usual and
customary contractual terms).
Definitions
4. (a)(1) In this rule, except as provided in
subparagraph (2), the term ‘‘officer or employee
of the House’’ means an individual (other than a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner)
whose pay is disbursed by the Chief Administra-
tive Officer, who is paid at a rate equal to or
greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of
basic pay for GS–15 of the General Schedule,
and who is so employed for more than 90 days
in a calendar year.
(2)(A) When used with respect to an hono-
rarium, the term ‘‘officer or employee of the
House’’ means an individual (other than a Mem-
ber, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner) whose
salary is disbursed by the Chief Administrative
Officer.
(B) When used in clause 5 of this rule, the
terms ‘‘officer’’ and ‘‘employee’’ have the same
meanings as in rule XXIII.
(b) In this rule the term ‘‘honorarium’’ means
a payment of money or a thing of value for an
appearance, speech, or article (including a series
of appearances, speeches, or articles) by a Mem-
employee of the House, excluding any actual and
necessary travel expenses incurred by that
[946]
cer, or employee (and one relative) to the extent

that such expenses are paid or reimbursed by
any other person. The amount otherwise deter-
mined shall be reduced by the amount of any
such expenses to the extent that such expenses
are not so paid or reimbursed.
(c) In this rule the term ‘‘travel expenses’’
means, with respect to a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of
the House, or a relative of such Member, Dele-
gate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or em-
ployee, the cost of transportation, and the cost of
lodging and meals while away from the resi-
dence or principal place of employment of such
individual.
(d)(1) In this rule the term ‘‘outside earned in-
come’’ means, with respect to a Member, Dele-
ployee of the House, wages, salaries, fees, and
other amounts received or to be received as com-
pensation for personal services actually ren-
dered, but does not include—
(A) the salary of a Member, Delegate, Resi-
dent Commissioner, officer, or employee;
(B) any compensation derived by a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of the House for personal services
actually rendered before the adoption of this
rule or before such individual became a Mem-
ber, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee;
(C) any amount paid by, or on behalf of, a
[947]
ficer, or employee of the House to a tax-quali-

fied pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus
plan and received by such individual from
such a plan;
(D) in the case of a Member, Delegate, Resi-
House engaged in a trade or business in which
such individual or the family of such indi-
vidual holds a controlling interest and in
which both personal services and capital are
income-producing factors, any amount received
by the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee, so long as the per-
sonal services actually rendered by such indi-
vidual in the trade or business do not generate
a significant amount of income; or
(E) copyright royalties received from estab-
lished publishers under usual and customary
contractual terms; and
(2) outside earned income shall be determined
without regard to community property law.
(e) In this rule the term ‘‘charitable organiza-
tion’’ means an organization described in section
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
The rule on outside earned income (formerly rule XLVII) was adopted
in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933–53). It was
amended for the first time in the 96th Congress to increase the limit on
a single honorarium from $750 to $1000 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp.
7–16). The rule was amended further in the 97th Congress to (1) increase
the limitation on outside earned income for a calendar year from 15 to
30 percent of a Member’s salary; (2) strike the $1000 limitation on a single
honorarium; and (3) provide that honoraria shall be attributable to the
calendar year in which payment is received (H. Res. 305, Dec. 15, 1981,
p. 31529). In the 99th Congress, the rule was amended to delete the 30
percent of aggregate salary limitation on outside earned income and to
conform the limitation to that contained in law (2 U.S.C. 31–1 provides
[948]
that a Member of Congress may not accept honoraria in excess of 40 percent

of a Member’s aggregate salary) (H. Res. 427, Apr. 22, 1986, p. 8328).
The next day, the House adopted a resolution vacating the proceedings
by which that resolution had been adopted and laying that resolution on
the table (H. Res. 432, Apr. 23, 1986, p. 8474). The Ethics Reform Act
of 1989: (1) amended the title of the rule; (2) amended clause 1 to effect
for 1991 and future years the elimination of honoraria not assigned to
charity and closer restrictions on outside earned income (including limita-
tion to 15 percent of Executive Level II pay); (3) amended clause 2 to effect
for 1991 and future years new limits on outside employment; and (4)
amended clause 3 to revise certain definitions (P.L. 101–194). That Act
also established a civil cause of action against an individual who violates
the limitations on outside earned income and employment (5 U.S.C. app.
504). In the 102d Congress clause 2 was further amended to specify that
the ban on affiliation with a firm applies only if compensation is received
and only with respect to a professional services firm, and clause 3 was
further amended to specify the applicability of outside earned income re-
strictions to officers and employees of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39). In the 104th Congress a new clause was added to prohibit the receipt
of advance payments on copyright royalties and the receipt of any payments
on copyright royalties under future contracts unless approved in advance
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (H. Res.
299, Dec. 22, 1995, p. 38488). In the 106th Congress the rule was amended
to permit certain House employees to receive honoraria; the parenthetical
in clause 4(b) was adopted; and, when the House recodified its rules, it
consolidated former rules XLI, XLVII, and LI under rule XXVI (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This rule was redesignated as rule XXV in the
107th Congress (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Clause 4(a)(1)
(and clause 5(e)) were amended in the 107th Congress to conform the defini-
tion of ‘‘officer or employee’’ to rule XXIII (sec. 2(w), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 26). Clause 2 was amended in the 108th Congress to except the
practice of medicine from the restriction against outside earned income
received from providing professional services that involve a fiduciary rela-
tionship (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Gender-based references
p. l). Amendments were effected in the 112th Congress to reflect a change
in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Before its coverage was restricted to the Senate in the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 (sec. 601(b), P.L. 101–194), a separate provision of law (2 U.S.C.
441i) provided criminal penalties for any elected or appointed Federal em-
ployee who accepts an honorarium of more than $2000 per speech. A statu-
tory ceiling of $25,000 from honoraria in a calendar year was repealed
in 1981 (P.L. 97–51). The Senate repealed its rule on outside earned income
[949]
in the 97th Congress (S. Res. 512, Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30640) and reinstated
it in the 102d Congress (S. Res. 192, Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29567).
For provisions of the Federal criminal code restricting postemployment
activities, see 18 U.S.C. 207, which was originally enacted in title V of
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95–521).
Gifts
5. (a)(1)(A)(i) A Member, Delegate, Resident
§ 1100. Gift rule. Commissioner, officer, or employee
of the House may not knowingly ac-
cept a gift except as provided in this clause.
(ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
knowingly accept a gift from a registered lob-
byist or agent of a foreign principal or from a
private entity that retains or employs registered
lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal except
as provided in subparagraph (3) of this para-
graph.
(B)(i) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House may ac-
cept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent)
not prohibited by subdivision (A)(ii) that the
cer, or employee reasonably and in good faith be-
lieves to have a value of less than $50 and a cu-
mulative value from one source during a cal-
endar year of less than $100. A gift having a
value of less than $10 does not count toward the
$100 annual limit. The value of perishable food
sent to an office shall be allocated among the in-
dividual recipients and not to the Member, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner. Formal record-
keeping is not required by this subdivision, but
[950]
ficer, or employee of the House shall make a

good faith effort to comply with this subdivision.
(ii) A gift of a ticket to a sporting or entertain-
ment event shall be valued at the face value of
the ticket or, in the case of a ticket without a
face value, at the highest cost of a ticket with a
face value for the event. The price printed on a
ticket to an event shall be deemed its face value
only if it also is the price at which the issuer of-
fers that ticket for sale to the public.
(2)(A) In this clause the term ‘‘gift’’ means a
gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospi-
tality, loan, forbearance, or other item having
monetary value. The term includes gifts of serv-
ices, training, transportation, lodging, and
meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of
a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement
after the expense has been incurred.
(B)(i) A gift to a family member of a Member,
ployee of the House, or a gift to any other indi-
vidual based on that individual’s relationship
with the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee, shall be considered
a gift to the Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee if it is given with
the knowledge and acquiescence of the Member,
ployee and the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee has reason to
believe the gift was given because of the official
position of such individual.
[951]
(ii) If food or refreshment is provided at the

same time and place to both a Member, Dele-
ployee of the House and the spouse or dependent
thereof, only the food or refreshment provided to
the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee shall be treated as a gift for
purposes of this clause.
(3) The restrictions in subparagraph (1) do not
apply to the following:
(A) Anything for which the Member, Dele-
ployee of the House pays the market value, or
does not use and promptly returns to the
donor.
(B) A contribution, as defined in section
301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) that is lawfully made
under that Act, a lawful contribution for elec-
tion to a State or local government office, or
attendance at a fundraising event sponsored
by a political organization described in section
527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(C) A gift from a relative as described in sec-
tion 109(16) of title I of the Ethics in Govern-
ment Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(16)).
(D)(i) Anything provided by an individual on
the basis of a personal friendship unless the
ficer, or employee of the House has reason to
believe that, under the circumstances, the gift
was provided because of the official position of
[952]
such individual and not because of the per-

sonal friendship.
(ii) In determining whether a gift is pro-
vided on the basis of personal friendship, the
ficer, or employee of the House shall consider
the circumstances under which the gift was of-
fered, such as:
(I) The history of the relationship of such
individual with the individual giving the
gift, including any previous exchange of gifts
between them.
(II) Whether to the actual knowledge of
such individual the individual who gave the
gift personally paid for the gift or sought a
tax deduction or business reimbursement for
the gift.
(III) Whether to the actual knowledge of
such individual the individual who gave the
gift also gave the same or similar gifts to
other Members, Delegates, the Resident
Commissioners, officers, or employees of the
House.
(E) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3), a
contribution or other payment to a legal ex-
pense fund established for the benefit of a
ficer, or employee of the House that is other-
wise lawfully made in accordance with the re-
strictions and disclosure requirements of the
Committee on Ethics.
[953]
(F) A gift from another Member, Delegate,

the House or Senate.
(G) Food, refreshments, lodging, transpor-
tation, and other benefits—
(i) resulting from the outside business or
employment activities of the Member, Dele-
ployee of the House (or other outside activi-
ties that are not connected to the duties of
such individual as an officeholder), or of the
spouse of such individual, if such benefits
have not been offered or enhanced because
of the official position of such individual and
are customarily provided to others in similar
circumstances;
(ii) customarily provided by a prospective
employer in connection with bona fide em-
ployment discussions; or
(iii) provided by a political organization
described in section 527(e) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in connection with a
fundraising or campaign event sponsored by
such organization.
(H) Pension and other benefits resulting
from continued participation in an employee
welfare and benefits plan maintained by a
former employer.
(I) Informational materials that are sent to
the office of the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House in the form of books, articles, periodi-
[954]
cals, other written materials, audiotapes, vid-

eotapes, or other forms of communication.
(J) Awards or prizes that are given to com-
petitors in contests or events open to the pub-
lic, including random drawings.
(K) Honorary degrees (and associated travel,
food, refreshments, and entertainment) and
other bona fide, nonmonetary awards pre-
sented in recognition of public service (and as-
sociated food, refreshments, and entertain-
ment provided in the presentation of such de-
grees and awards).
(L) Training (including food and refresh-
ments furnished to all attendees as an inte-
gral part of the training) if such training is in
the interest of the House.
(M) Bequests, inheritances, and other trans-
fers at death.
(N) An item, the receipt of which is author-
ized by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act,
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Ex-
change Act, or any other statute.
(O) Anything that is paid for by the Federal
Government, by a State or local government,
or secured by the Government under a Gov-
ernment contract.
(P) A gift of personal hospitality (as defined
in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government
Act) of an individual other than a registered
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.
(Q) Free attendance at an event permitted
under subparagraph (4).
(R) Opportunities and benefits that are—
[955]
(i) available to the public or to a class con-

sisting of all Federal employees, whether or
not restricted on the basis of geographic con-
sideration;
(ii) offered to members of a group or class
in which membership is unrelated to con-
gressional employment;
(iii) offered to members of an organization,
such as an employees’ association or con-
gressional credit union, in which member-
ship is related to congressional employment
and similar opportunities are available to
large segments of the public through organi-
zations of similar size;
(iv) offered to a group or class that is not
defined in a manner that specifically dis-
criminates among Government employees on
the basis of branch of Government or type of
responsibility, or on a basis that favors
those of higher rank or rate of pay;
(v) in the form of loans from banks and
other financial institutions on terms gen-
erally available to the public; or
(vi) in the form of reduced membership or
other fees for participation in organization
activities offered to all Government employ-
ees by professional organizations if the only
restrictions on membership relate to profes-
sional qualifications.
(S) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is
substantially commemorative in nature and
that is intended for presentation.
[956]
(T) Anything for which, in an unusual case,

a waiver is granted by the Committee on Eth-
ics.
(U) Food or refreshments of a nominal value
offered other than as a part of a meal.
(V) Donations of products from the district
or State that the Member, Delegate, or Resi-
dent Commissioner represents that are in-
tended primarily for promotional purposes,
such as display or free distribution, and are of
minimal value to any single recipient.
(W) An item of nominal value such as a
greeting card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.
(4)(A) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House may ac-
cept an offer of free attendance at a widely at-
tended convention, conference, symposium,
forum, panel discussion, dinner, viewing, recep-
tion, or similar event, provided by the sponsor of
the event, if—
(i) the Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House par-
ticipates in the event as a speaker or a panel
participant, by presenting information related
to Congress or matters before Congress, or by
performing a ceremonial function appropriate
to the official position of such individual; or
(ii) attendance at the event is appropriate to
the performance of the official duties or rep-
resentative function of the Member, Delegate,
the House.
[957]
(B) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-

sioner, officer, or employee of the House who at-
tends an event described in subdivision (A) may
accept a sponsor’s unsolicited offer of free at-
tendance at the event for an accompanying indi-
vidual.
(C) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House, or the
spouse or dependent thereof, may accept a spon-
sor’s unsolicited offer of free attendance at a
charity event, except that reimbursement for
transportation and lodging may not be accepted
in connection with the event unless—
(i) all of the net proceeds of the event are for
the benefit of an organization described in sec-
tion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code;
(ii) reimbursement for the transportation
and lodging in connection with the event is
paid by such organization; and
(iii) the offer of free attendance at the event
is made by such organization.
(D) In this paragraph the term ‘‘free attend-
ance’’ may include waiver of all or part of a con-
ference or other fee, the provision of local trans-
portation, or the provision of food, refreshments,
entertainment, and instructional materials fur-
nished to all attendees as an integral part of the
event. The term does not include entertainment
collateral to the event, nor does it include food
or refreshments taken other than in a group set-
ting with all or substantially all other attendees.
[958]
(5) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-

accept a gift the value of which exceeds $250 on
the basis of the personal friendship exception in
subparagraph (3)(D) unless the Committee on
Ethics issues a written determination that such
exception applies. A determination under this
subparagraph is not required for gifts given on
the basis of the family relationship exception in
subparagraph (3)(C).
(6) When it is not practicable to return a tan-
gible item because it is perishable, the item
may, at the discretion of the recipient, be given
to an appropriate charity or destroyed.
(b)(1)(A) A reimbursement (including payment
in kind) to a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee of the House for
necessary transportation, lodging, and related
expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking en-
gagement, factfinding trip, or similar event in
connection with the duties of such individual as
an officeholder shall be considered as a reim-
bursement to the House and not a gift prohib-
ited by this clause when it is from a private
source other than a registered lobbyist or agent
of a foreign principal or a private entity that re-
tains or employs registered lobbyists or agents of
a foreign principal (except as provided in sub-
division (C)), if the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee—
(i) in the case of an employee, receives ad-
vance authorization, from the Member, Dele-
gate, Resident Commissioner, or officer under
[959]
whose direct supervision the employee works,

to accept reimbursement; and
(ii) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to
be reimbursed and the authorization to the
Clerk within 15 days after the travel is com-
pleted.
(B) For purposes of subdivision (A), events, the
activities of which are substantially recreational
in nature, are not considered to be in connection
with the duties of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House
as an officeholder.
(C) A reimbursement (including payment in
kind) to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House for any
purpose described in subdivision (A) also shall
be considered as a reimbursement to the House
and not a gift prohibited by this clause (without
regard to whether the source retains or employs
registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign prin-
cipal) if it is, under regulations prescribed by the
Committee on Ethics to implement this provi-
sion—
(i) directly from an institution of higher edu-
cation within the meaning of section 101 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965; or
(ii) provided only for attendance at or par-
ticipation in a one-day event (exclusive of trav-
el time and an overnight stay).
Regulations prescribed to implement this provi-
sion may permit a two-night stay when deter-
mined by the committee on a case-by-case basis
[960]
to be practically required to participate in the

one-day event.
(2) Each advance authorization to accept reim-
bursement shall be signed by the Member, Dele-
gate, Resident Commissioner, or officer of the
House under whose direct supervision the em-
ployee works and shall include—
(A) the name of the employee;
(B) the name of the person who will make
the reimbursement;
(C) the time, place, and purpose of the trav-
el; and
(D) a determination that the travel is in
connection with the duties of the employee as
an officeholder and would not create the ap-
pearance that the employee is using public of-
fice for private gain.
(3) Each disclosure made under subparagraph
(1)(A) shall be signed by the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, or officer (in the case of
travel by that Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, or officer) or by the Member, Dele-
gate, Resident Commissioner, or officer under
whose direct supervision the employee works (in
the case of travel by an employee) and shall in-
clude—
(A) a good faith estimate of total transpor-
tation expenses reimbursed or to be reim-
bursed;
(B) a good faith estimate of total lodging ex-
penses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
(C) a good faith estimate of total meal ex-
penses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
[961]
(D) a good faith estimate of the total of

other expenses reimbursed or to be reim-
bursed;
(E) a determination that all such expenses
are necessary transportation, lodging, and re-
lated expenses as defined in subparagraph (4);
(F) a description of meetings and events at-
tended; and
(G) in the case of a reimbursement to a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or
officer, a determination that the travel was in
connection with the duties of such individual
as an officeholder and would not create the
appearance that the Member, Delegate, Resi-
dent Commissioner, or officer is using public
office for private gain.
(4) In this paragraph the term ‘‘necessary
transportation, lodging, and related expenses’’—
(A) includes reasonable expenses that are
necessary for travel for a period not exceeding
four days within the United States or seven
days exclusive of travel time outside of the
United States unless approved in advance by
the Committee on Ethics;
(B) is limited to reasonable expenditures for
transportation, lodging, conference fees and
materials, and food and refreshments, includ-
ing reimbursement for necessary transpor-
tation, whether or not such transportation oc-
curs within the periods described in subdivi-
sion (A);
(C) does not include expenditures for rec-
reational activities, nor does it include enter-
[962]
tainment other than that provided to all

attendees as an integral part of the event, ex-
cept for activities or entertainment otherwise
permissible under this clause; and
(D) may include travel expenses incurred on
behalf of a relative of the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee.
(5) The Clerk of the House shall make all ad-
vance authorizations, certifications, and disclo-
sures filed pursuant to this paragraph available
for public inspection as soon as possible after
they are received.
(c)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B),
ficer, or employee of the House may not accept
a reimbursement (including payment in kind) for
transportation, lodging, or related expenses for a
trip on which the traveler is accompanied on any
segment by a registered lobbyist or agent of a
foreign principal.
(B) Subdivision (A) does not apply to a trip for
which the source of reimbursement is an institu-
tion of higher education within the meaning of
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
accept a reimbursement (including payment in
kind) for transportation, lodging, or related ex-
penses under the exception in paragraph
(b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause for a trip that is fi-
nanced in whole or in part by a private entity
that retains or employs registered lobbyists or
agents of a foreign principal unless any involve-
[963]
ment of a registered lobbyist or agent of a for-

eign principal in the planning, organization, re-
quest, or arrangement of the trip is de minimis
under rules prescribed by the Committee on
Ethics to implement paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this
clause.
accept a reimbursement (including payment in
kind) for transportation, lodging, or related ex-
penses for a trip (other than a trip permitted
under paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause) if such
trip is in any part planned, organized, re-
quested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or
agent of a foreign principal.
(d) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commis-
sioner, officer, or employee of the House shall,
before accepting travel otherwise permissible
under paragraph (b)(1) of this clause from any
private source—
(1) provide to the Committee on Ethics be-
fore such trip a written certification signed by
the source or (in the case of a corporate per-
son) by an officer of the source—
(A) that the trip will not be financed in
any part by a registered lobbyist or agent of
a foreign principal;
(B) that the source either—
(i) does not retain or employ registered
lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal;
or
[964]
(ii) is an institution of higher education

within the meaning of section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; or
(iii) certifies that the trip meets the re-
quirements specified in rules prescribed
by the Committee on Ethics to implement
paragraph (b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause and
specifically details the extent of any in-
volvement of a registered lobbyist or agent
of a foreign principal in the planning, or-
ganization, request, or arrangement of the
trip considered to qualify as de minimis
under such rules;
(C) that the source will not accept from
another source any funds earmarked di-
rectly or indirectly for the purpose of financ-
ing any aspect of the trip;
(D) that the traveler will not be accom-
panied on any segment of the trip by a reg-
istered lobbyist or agent of a foreign prin-
cipal (except in the case of a trip for which
the source of reimbursement is an institu-
tion of higher education within the meaning
of section 101 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965); and
(E) that (except as permitted in paragraph
(b)(1)(C) of this clause) the trip will not in
any part be planned, organized, requested,
or arranged by a registered lobbyist or agent
of a foreign principal; and
(2) after the Committee on Ethics has pro-
mulgated the regulations mandated in para-
[965]
graph (i)(1)(B) of this clause, obtain the prior

approval of the committee for such trip.
(e) A gift prohibited by paragraph (a)(1) in-
cludes the following:
(1) Anything provided by a registered lob-
byist or an agent of a foreign principal to an
entity that is maintained or controlled by a
ficer, or employee of the House.
(2) A charitable contribution (as defined in
section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) made by a registered lobbyist or an
agent of a foreign principal on the basis of a
designation, recommendation, or other speci-
fication of a Member, Delegate, Resident Com-
missioner, officer, or employee of the House
(not including a mass mailing or other solicita-
tion directed to a broad category of persons or
entities), other than a charitable contribution
permitted by paragraph (f).
(3) A contribution or other payment by a
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign
principal to a legal expense fund established
for the benefit of a Member, Delegate, Resi-
House.
(4) A financial contribution or expenditure
made by a registered lobbyist or an agent of a
foreign principal relating to a conference, re-
treat, or similar event, sponsored by or affili-
ated with an official congressional organiza-
tion, for or on behalf of Members, Delegates,
[966]
the Resident Commissioner, officers, or em-

ployees of the House.
(f)(1) A charitable contribution (as defined in
section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) made by a registered lobbyist or an agent
of a foreign principal in lieu of an honorarium to
ficer, or employee of the House is not considered
a gift under this clause if it is reported as pro-
vided in subparagraph (2).
sioner, officer, or employee who designates or
recommends a contribution to a charitable orga-
nization in lieu of an honorarium described in
subparagraph (1) shall report within 30 days
after such designation or recommendation to the
Clerk—
(A) the name and address of the registered
lobbyist who is making the contribution in lieu
of an honorarium;
(B) the date and amount of the contribution;
and
(C) the name and address of the charitable
organization designated or recommended by
sioner.
The Clerk shall make public information re-
ceived under this subparagraph as soon as pos-
sible after it is received.
(g) In this clause—
(1) the term ‘‘registered lobbyist’’ means a
lobbyist registered under the Federal Regula-
tion of Lobbying Act or any successor statute;
[967]
(2) the term ‘‘agent of a foreign principal’’

means an agent of a foreign principal reg-
istered under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act; and
(3) the terms ‘‘officer’’ and ‘‘employee’’ have
the same meanings as in rule XXIII.
(h) All the provisions of this clause shall be in-
terpreted and enforced solely by the Committee
on Ethics. The Committee on Ethics is author-
ized to issue guidance on any matter contained
in this clause.
(i)(1) Not later than 45 days after the date of
adoption of this paragraph and at annual inter-
vals thereafter, the Committee on Ethics shall
develop and revise, as necessary—
(A) guidelines on judging the reasonableness
of an expense or expenditure for purposes of
this clause, including the factors that tend to
establish—
(i) a connection between a trip and official
duties;
(ii) the reasonableness of an amount spent
by a sponsor;
(iii) a relationship between an event and
an officially connected purpose; and
(iv) a direct and immediate relationship
between a source of funding and an event;
and
(B) regulations describing the information it
will require individuals subject to this clause
to submit to the committee in order to obtain
the prior approval of the committee for any
[968]
travel covered by this clause, including any re-

quired certifications.
(2) In developing and revising guidelines
under subparagraph (1)(A), the committee shall
take into account the maximum per diem rates
for official Government travel published annu-
ally by the General Services Administration, the
Department of State, and the Department of De-
fense.
This provision originally was adopted in the 104th Congress as rule LII
(H. Res. 250, Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33433). It was amended in the 106th Con-
gress to permit acceptance of a gift having a value of less than $50 and
a cumulative value from any one source in the calendar year of less than
$100 (H. Res. 9, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 237). In the 105th Congress it was redesig-
nated as rule LI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), and when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was consolidated
with former rules XLI and XLVIII under former rule XXVI (redesignated
as rule XXV in the 107th Congress) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clause
5(e) (now 5(g)) and clause 4(a)(1) were amended in the 107th Congress
to conform the definition of ‘‘officer or employee’’ to rule XXIII (sec. 2(w),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26). In the 108th Congress clause 5(a)(1)(B)
was amended to allocate the value of perishable food sent to an office among
the individual recipients rather than to the Member (sec. 2(r), H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7) and clause 5(a)(4)(C) was amended to permit, under
specified circumstances, a Member to be reimbursed for transportation and
lodging to attend a charity event (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p.
7). In the 109th Congress, clause 5(b)(4)(D) was amended to expand the
definition of ‘‘necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses’’ to
include travel expenses of a relative of a Member (rather than only a spouse
or child) (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). In the 110th Congress,
clause 5 was amended as follows: (1) to add subdivision (ii) to paragraph
(a)(1)(A), with a corresponding cross reference in paragraph (a)(1)(B)(i);
(2) to add subdivision (ii) to paragraph (a)(1)(B); (3) to include as gifts
reimbursement for transportation and lodging expenses from entities that
retain registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal in paragraph
(b)(1)(A) with an exception in a new subdivision (C) for reimbursements
from institutions of higher education or for participation in one-day events
(effective March 1, 2007); (4) to shorten from 30 to 15 days the time in
which disclosure is made to the Clerk under paragraph (b)(1)(A)(ii) (effec-
tive March 1, 2007); (5) to add subdivision (F) to paragraph (b)(3); (6) to
make a conforming amendment to paragraph (b)(3) (effective March 1,
2007); (7) to include additional certifications and disclosures in paragraph
[969]
§ 1101–§ 1102 Rule XXV, clause 6
(b)(5) (effective March 1, 2007); (8) to add paragraphs (c) and (d) (effective
March 1, 2007); and (9) to add paragraph (i) (effective March 1, 2007).
Subdivision (Q) was amended during the 110th Congress to clarify the
events for which a gift of free attendance is not prohibited (sec. 4, H. Res.
437, May 24, 2007, p. 14156). In the 111th Congress a technical correction
to paragraph (i)(2) was effected and gender-based references were elimi-
nated (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). Amendments were
effected in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name (sec.
2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The earliest form of the rule on ‘‘employment practices’’ was designated
§ 1101. Former rules
as rule LI. It grew out of the Fair Employment Practices
on employment Resolution first adopted in the 100th Congress (H. Res.
practices and 558, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27840) and renewed in the 101st
application of certain
Congress (H. Res. 15, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 85). The terms
laws.
of that resolution were incorporated by reference in a
standing rule LI in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39),
and were codified in full text, with certain amendments, in the 103d Con-
gress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). The Employment Practices rule was
overtaken by the earliest form of ‘‘application of certain laws,’’ which was
originally designated as LII in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 578, Oct. 7,
1994, p. 29326). The Application of Laws rule, in turn, was overtaken by
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–1; 2 U.S.C. 1301).
Certain savings provisions appear in section 506 of that Act (2 U.S.C. 1435).
A later form of the rule designated as LII (gift rule) was adopted in the
104th Congress (H. Res. 250, Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33433). In the 105th Con-
gress the Gift Rule was redesignated as rule LI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121).
Claims against the Government

6. A person may not be an officer or employee
§ 1102. Officers and of the House, or continue in its em-
employees not to be
agents of claims. ployment, if acting as an agent for
the prosecution of a claim against
the Government or if interested in such claim,
except as an original claimant or in the proper
discharge of official duties.
This provision was adopted in 1842 (V, 7227). It was renumbered Janu-
ary 3, 1953 (p. 24). It was amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989
to include employees in the prohibition against prosecuting or having an
interest in any claim against the Government, to specify the inapplicability
of that prohibition to the discharge of official duties, and to delete an obso-
lete reference to the Committee on House Administration (P.L. 101–194).
[970]
Rule XXV, clause 8 § 1102a–§ 1102b

the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XLI (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In addition to rules XXIII through XXVI, several provisions of the Fed-
eral criminal code also address the conduct of Members, officers, and em-
ployees with respect to bribery of public officials (18 U.S.C. 201–203),
claims against the Government (18 U.S.C. 204, 205, 207(e), 216), and public
officials acting as agents of foreign principals (18 U.S.C. 219).

sioner shall prohibit all staff em-
§ 1102a. Lobbying
contact with spouse of
Member. ployed by that Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner (includ-
ing staff in personal, committee, and leadership
offices) from making any lobbying contact (as de-
fined in section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995) with that individual’s spouse if that
spouse is a lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclo-
sure Act of 1995 or is employed or retained by
such a lobbyist for the purpose of influencing
legislation.
This provision was adopted in the 110th Congress (sec. 302, P.L. 110–
81).
8. During the dates on which the national po-

§ 1102b. Prohibition litical party to which a Member (in-
during political
convention. cluding a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner) belongs holds its
convention to nominate a candidate for the office
of President or Vice President, the Member may
not participate in an event honoring that Mem-
ber, other than in the capacity as a candidate for
such office, if such event is directly paid for by
a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclo-
sure Act of 1995 or a private entity that retains
or employs such a registered lobbyist.
[971]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
This provision was adopted in the 110th Congress (sec. 305, P.L. 110–
81). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l).
RULE XXVI
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
1. The Clerk shall send a copy of each report

filed with the Clerk under title I of
§ 1103. Financial
report disclosing
the Ethics in Government Act of
certain financial
interests.
1978 within the seven-day period
beginning on the date on which the report is
filed to the Committee on Ethics. By August 1 of
each year, the Clerk shall compile all such re-
ports sent to the Clerk by Members within the
period beginning on January 1 and ending on
June 15 of each year and have them printed as
a House document, which shall be made avail-
able to the public.
2. For the purposes of this rule, the provisions
of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 shall be considered Rules of the House as
they pertain to Members, Delegates, the Resi-
dent Commissioner, officers, and employees of
the House.
3. Members of the board of the Office of Con-
gressional Ethics shall file annual financial dis-
closure reports with the Clerk of the House on
or before May 15 of each calendar year after any
year in which they perform the duties of that po-
sition. Such reports shall be on a form prepared
by the Clerk that is substantially similar to form
450 of the Office of Government Ethics. The
Clerk shall send a copy of each such report filed
[972]
Rule XXVI § 1103
with the Clerk within the seven-day period be-

ginning on the date on which the report is filed
to the Committee on Ethics and shall have them
printed as a House document and made avail-
able to the public pursuant to clause 1.
The original version of this rule (formerly rule XLIV) was adopted in
the 90th Congress, in the same resolution that redefined the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (H. Res.
1099, Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8803). In the 91st Congress the rule was amended,
effective for years after 1970, to require public disclosure of: (1) honoraria
from a single source totaling $300 or more; and (2) each creditor to whom
was owed an unsecured loan or other indebtedness of $10,000 or more
outstanding for at least 90 days in the preceding calendar year (H. Res.
796, May 26, 1970, p. 17019). It was further amended in the 92d Congress
to bring the Delegates and Resident Commissioner within the definition
of ‘‘Members’’ in the final sentence of the rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144; H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36021–23), and was amended in
the 95th Congress to delete an obsolete reference (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977,
pp. 53–70). The rule was completely amended in the 95th Congress, effec-
tive July 1, 1977, to: (1) broaden the sources and minimum amounts of
income reported; (2) require reports to be filed with the Clerk as well as
with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; and (3) make reports
available to the public as printed House documents rather than having
them maintained by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (H.
Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933–53). The rule was again amended in the
96th Congress to incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of title
I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as they pertain to Members,
officers, and employees of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16).
Clause 1 was amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to make con-
forming changes in certain dates (P.L. 101–194). Before the House recodi-
rule XLIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This rule was redesignated
as rule XXVI in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 24). Clause 3 was added in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 895, Mar. 11,
2008, p. l). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Con-
gress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). This rule was amended
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Pertinent provisions of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App. 101–111) follow:
[973]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
TITLE I—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL
PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE
SEC. 101. (a) Within thirty days of assuming the position of an officer
or employee described in subsection (f), an individual shall file a report
containing the information described in section 102(b) unless the individual
has left another position described in subsection (f) within thirty days prior
to assuming such new position or has already filed a report under this
title with respect to nomination for the new position or as a candidate
for the position.
* * *
(c) Within thirty days of becoming a candidate as defined in section 301
of the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, in a calendar year for nomination
or election to the office of President, Vice President, or Member of Congress,
or on or before May 15 of that calendar year, whichever is later, but in
no event later than 30 days before the election, and on or before May
15 of each successive year an individual continues to be a candidate, an
individual other than an incumbent President, Vice President, or Member
of Congress shall file a report containing the information described in sec-
tion 102(b). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in any calendar year
in which an individual continues to be a candidate for any office but all
elections for such office relating to such candidacy were held in prior cal-
endar years, such individual need not file a report unless he becomes a
candidate for another vacancy in that office or another office during that
year.
(d) Any individual who is an officer or employee described in subsection
(f) during any calendar year and performs the duties of his position or
office for a period in excess of sixty days in that calendar year shall file
on or before May 15 of the succeeding year a report containing the informa-
tion described in section 102(a).
(e) Any individual who occupies a position described in subsection (f)
shall, on or before the thirtieth day after termination of employment in
such position, file a report containing the information described in section
102(a) covering the preceding calendar year if the report required by sub-
section (d) has not been filed and covering the portion of the calendar
year in which such termination occurs up to the date the individual left
such office or position, unless such individual has accepted employment
in another position described in subsection (f).
(f) The officers and employees referred to in subsections (a), (d), and
(e) are— * * *
(9) a Member of Congress as defined under section 109(12);
(10) an officer or employee of the Congress as defined under section
109(13);
* * *
[974]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(g)(1) Reasonable extensions of time for filing any report may be granted
under procedures prescribed by the supervising ethics office for each
branch, but the total of such extensions shall not exceed ninety days. * * *
(h) The provisions of subsections (a), (b), and (e) shall not apply to an
individual who, as determined by the designated agency ethics official or
Secretary concerned (or in the case of a Presidential appointee under sub-
section (b), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics), the congres-
sional ethics committees, or the Judicial Conference, is not reasonably ex-
pected to perform the duties of his office or position for more than sixty
days in a calendar year, except that if such individual performs the duties
of his office or position for more than sixty days in a calendar year—
(1) the report required by subsections (a) and (b) shall be filed
within fifteen days of the sixtieth day, and
(2) the report required by subsection (e) shall be filed as provided
in such subsection.
(i) The supervising ethics office for each branch may grant a publicly
available request for a waiver of any reporting requirement under this
section for an individual who is expected to perform or has performed the
duties of his office or position less than one hundred and thirty days in
a calendar year, but only if the supervising ethics office determines that—
(1) such individual is not a full-time employee of the Government,
(2) such individual is able to provide services specially needed by
the Government,
(3) it is unlikely that the individual’s outside employment or finan-
cial interests will create a conflict of interest, and
(4) public financial disclosure by such individual is not necessary
in the circumstances.
CONTENTS OF REPORTS
SEC. 102. (a) Each report filed pursuant to section 101 (d) and (e) shall
include a full and complete statement with respect to the following:
(1)(A) The source, type, and amount or value of income (other than in-
come referred to in subparagraph (B)) from any source (other than from
current employment by the United States Government), and the source,
date, and amount of honoraria from any source, received during the pre-
ceding calendar year, aggregating $200 or more in value and, effective
January 1, 1991, the source, date, and amount of payments made to chari-
table organizations in lieu of honoraria, and the reporting individual shall
simultaneously file with the applicable supervising ethics office, on a con-
fidential basis, a corresponding list of recipients of all such payments, to-
gether with the dates and amounts of such payments.
(B) The source and type of income which consists of dividends, rents,
interest, and capital gains, received during the preceding calendar year
which exceeds $200 in amount or value, and an indication of which of
the following categories the amount or value of such item of income is
within:
[975]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(i) not more than $1,000,

(ii) greater than $1,000 but not more than $2,500,
(iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than $5,000,
(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than $15,000,
(v) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000,
(vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000,
(vii) greater than $100,000 but not more than $1,000,000,
(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000, or
(ix) greater than $5,000,000.
(2)(A) The identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of
all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value as established by section
7342(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, or $250, whichever is greater,
received from any source other than a relative of the reporting individual
during the preceding calendar year, except that any food, lodging, or enter-
tainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be re-
ported, and any gift with a fair market value of $100 or less, as adjusted
at the same time and by the same percentage as the minimal value is
adjusted, need not be aggregated for purposes of this subparagraph.
(B) The identity of the source and a brief description (including a travel
itinerary, dates, and nature of expenses provided) of reimbursements re-
ceived from any source aggregating more than the minimal value as estab-
lished by section 7342(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, or $250, which-
ever is greater, and received during the preceding calendar year.
(C) In an unusual case, a gift need not be aggregated under subparagraph
(A) if a publicly available request for a waiver is granted.
(3) The identity and category of value of any interest in property held
during the preceding calendar year in a trade or business, or for investment
or the production of income, which has a fair market value which exceeds
$1,000 as of the close of the preceding calendar year, excluding any per-
sonal liability owed to the reporting individual by a spouse, or by a parent,
brother, sister, or child of the reporting individual or of the reporting indi-
vidual’s spouse, or any deposits aggregating $5,000 or less in a personal
savings account. For purposes of this paragraph, a personal savings ac-
count shall include any certificate of deposit or any other form of deposit
in a bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or similar financial
institution.
(4) The identity and category of value of the total liabilities owed to
any creditor other than a spouse, or a parent, brother, sister, or child of
the reporting individual or of the reporting individual’s spouse which ex-
ceed $10,000 at any time during the preceding calendar year, excluding—
(A) any mortgage secured by real property which is a personal res-
idence of the reporting individual or his spouse; and
(B) any loan secured by a personal motor vehicle, household fur-
niture, or appliances, which loan does not exceed the purchase price
of the item which secures it.
[976]
Rule XXVI § 1103
With respect to revolving charge accounts, only those with an outstanding

liability which exceeds $10,000 as of the close of the preceding calendar
year need be reported under this paragraph.
(5) Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date,
and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the pre-
ceding calendar year exceeds $1,000—
(A) in real property, other than property used solely as a personal
residence of the reporting individual or his spouse; or
(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of secu-
rities.
Reporting is not required under this paragraph of any transaction solely
by and between the reporting individual, his spouse, or dependent children.
(6)(A) The identity of all positions held on or before the date of filing
during the current calendar year (and, for the first report filed by an indi-
vidual, during the two-year period preceding such calendar year) as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other busi-
ness enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or any
educational or other institution other than the United States. This sub-
paragraph shall not require the reporting of positions held in any religious,
social, fraternal, or political entity and positions solely of an honorary na-
ture.
(B) If any person, other than the United States Government, paid a non-
elected reporting individual compensation in excess of $5,000 in any of
the two calendar years prior to the calendar year during which the indi-
vidual files his first report under this title, the individual shall include
in the report—
(i) the identity of each source of such compensation; and
(ii) a brief description of the nature of the duties performed or
services rendered by the reporting individual for each such source.
The preceding sentence shall not require any individual to include in such
report any information which is considered confidential as a result of a
privileged relationship, established by law, between such individual and
any person nor shall it require an individual to report any information
with respect to any person for whom services were provided by any firm
or association of which such individual was a member, partner, or employee
unless such individual was directly involved in the provision of such serv-
ices.
(7) A description of the date, parties to, and terms of any agreement
or arrangement with respect to (A) future employment; (B) a leave of ab-
sence during the period of the reporting individual’s Government service;
(C) continuation of payments by a former employer other than the United
States Government; and (D) continuing participation in an employee wel-
fare or benefit plan maintained by a former employer.
(8) The category of the total cash value of any interest of the reporting
individual in a qualified blind trust, unless the trust instrument was exe-
[977]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
cuted prior to July 24, 1995 and precludes the beneficiary from receiving
information on the total cash value of any interest in the qualified blind
trust.
(b)(1) Each report filed pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section
101 shall include a full and complete statement with respect to the informa-
tion required by—
(A) paragraph (1) of subsection (a) for the year of filing and the
preceding calendar year,
(B) paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a) as of the date specified
in the report but which is less than thirty-one days before the filing
date, and
(C) paragraphs (6) and (7) of subsection (a) as of the filing date
but for periods described in such paragraphs.
(2)(A) In lieu of filling out one or more schedules of a financial disclosure
form, an individual may supply the required information in an alternative
format, pursuant to either rules adopted by the supervising ethics office
for the branch in which such individual serves or pursuant to a specific
written determination by such office for a reporting individual.
(B) In lieu of indicating the category of amount or value of any item
contained in any report filed under this title, a reporting individual may
indicate the exact dollar amount of such item.
(c) In the case of any individual described in section 101(e), any reference
to the preceding calendar year shall be considered also to include that
part of the calendar year of filing up to the date of the termination of
employment.
(d)(1) The categories for reporting the amount or value of the items cov-
ered in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (8) of subsection (a) are as follows:
(A) not more than $15,000;
(B) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000;
(C) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000;
(D) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000;
(E) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000;
(F) greater than $500,000 but not more than $1,000,000;
(G) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
(H) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than $25,000,000;
(I) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than $50,000,000; and
(J) greater than $50,000,000.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) if the current
value of an interest in real property (or an interest in a real estate partner-
ship) is not ascertainable without an appraisal, an individual may list (A)
the date of purchase and the purchase price of the interest in the real
property, or (B) the assessed value of the real property for tax purposes,
adjusted to reflect the market value of the property used for the assessment
if the assessed value is computed at less than 100 percent of such market
value, but such individual shall include in his report a full and complete
description of the method used to determine such assessed value, instead
[978]
Rule XXVI § 1103
of specifying a category of value pursuant to paragraph (1) of this sub-

section. If the current value of any other item required to be reported
under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) is not ascertainable without an ap-
praisal, such individual may list the book value of a corporation whose
stock is not publicly traded, the net worth of a business partnership, the
equity value of an individually owned business, or with respect to other
holdings, any recognized indication of value, but such individual shall in-
clude in his report a full and complete description of the method used
in determining such value. In lieu of any value referred to in the preceding
sentence, an individual may list the assessed value of the item for tax
purposes, adjusted to reflect the market value of the item used for the
assessment if the assessed value is computed at less than 100 percent
of such market value, but a full and complete description of the method
used in determining such assessed value shall be included in the report.
(e)(1) Except as provided in the last sentence of this paragraph, each
report required by section 101 shall also contain information listed in para-
graphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of this section respecting the spouse
or dependent child of the reporting individual as follows:
(A) The source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from
any person which exceed $1,000 and the source and amount of any
honoraria received by a spouse, except that, with respect to earned
income (other than honoraria), if the spouse is self-employed in busi-
ness or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession
need be reported.
(B) All information required to be reported in subsection (a)(1)(B)
with respect to income derived by a spouse or dependent child from
any asset held by the spouse or dependent child and reported pursu-
ant to subsection (a)(3).
(C) In the case of any gifts received by a spouse or dependent child
which are not received totally independent of the relationship of the
spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual, the identity of
the source and a brief description of gifts of transportation, lodging,
food, or entertainment and a brief description and the value of other
gifts.
(D) In the case of any reimbursements received by a spouse or de-
pendent child which are not received totally independent of the rela-
tionship of the spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual,
the identity of the source and a brief description of each such reim-
bursement.
(E) In the case of items described in paragraphs (3) through (5) of
subsection (a), all information required to be reported under these
paragraphs other than items (i) which the reporting individual cer-
tifies represent the spouse’s or dependent child’s sole financial inter-
est or responsibility and which the reporting individual has no
knowledge of, (ii) which are not in any way, past or present, derived
from the income, assets, or activities of the reporting individual, and
[979]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(iii) from which the reporting individual neither derives, nor expects
to derive, any financial or economic benefit.
(F) For purposes of this section, categories with amounts or values
greater than $1,000,000 set forth in sections 102(a)(1)(B) and
102(d)(1) shall apply to the income, assets, or liabilities of spouses
and dependent children only if the income, assets, or liabilities are
held jointly with the reporting individual. All other income, assets,
or liabilities of the spouse or dependent children required to be re-
ported under this section in an amount or value greater than
$1,000,000 shall be categorized only as an amount or value greater
than $1,000,000.
Reports required by subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 101 shall, with
respect to the spouse and dependent child of the reporting individual, only
contain information listed in paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of subsection (a),
as specified in this paragraph.
(2) No report shall be required with respect to a spouse living separate
and apart from the reporting individual with the intention of terminating
the marriage or providing for permanent separation; or with respect to
any income or obligations of an individual arising from the dissolution
of his marriage or the permanent separation from his spouse.
(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each reporting individual shall
report the information required to be reported pursuant to subsections
(a), (b), and (c) of this section with respect to the holdings of and the income
from a trust or other financial arrangement from which income is received
by, or with respect to which a beneficial interest in principal or income
is held by, such individual, his spouse, or any dependent child.
(2) A reporting individual need not report the holdings of or the source
of income from any of the holdings of—
(A) any qualified blind trust (as defined in paragraph (3));
(B) a trust—
(i) which was not created directly by such individual, his
spouse, or any dependent child, and
(ii) the holdings or sources of income of which such individual,
his spouse, and any dependent child have no knowledge of; or
(C) an entity described under the provisions of paragraph (8), but
such individual shall report the category of the amount of income re-
ceived by him, his spouse, or any dependent child from the trust or
other entity under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section.
(3) For purpose of this subsection, the term ‘‘qualified blind trust’’ in-
cludes any trust in which a reporting individual, his spouse, or any minor
or dependent child has a beneficial interest in the principal or income,
and which meets the following requirements:
(A)(i) The trustee of the trust and any other entity designated in
the trust instrument to perform fiduciary duties is a financial insti-
tution, an attorney, a certified public accountant, a broker, or an in-
vestment advisor who—
[980]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(I) is independent of and not associated with any interested

party so that the trustee or other person cannot be controlled or
influenced in the administration of the trust by any interested
party;
(II) is not and has not been an employee of or affiliated with
any interested party and is not a partner of, or involved in any
joint venture or other investment with, any interested party;
and
(III) is not a relative of any interested party.
(ii) Any officer or employee of a trustee or other entity who is
involved in the management or control of the trust—
(I) is independent of and not associated with any interested
party so that such officer or employee cannot be controlled or in-
fluenced in the administration of the trust by any interested
party;
(II) is not a partner of, or involved in any joint venture or
other investment with, any interested party; and
(III) is not a relative of any interested party.
(B) Any asset transferred to the trust by an interested party is
free of any restriction with respect to its transfer or sale unless such
restriction is expressly approved by the supervising ethics office of
the reporting individual.
(C) The trust instrument which establishes the trust provides
that—
(i) except to the extent provided in subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, the trustee in the exercise of his authority and dis-
cretion to manage and control the assets of the trust shall not
consult or notify any interested party;
(ii) the trust shall not contain any asset the holding of which
by an interested party is prohibited by any law or regulation;
(iii) the trustee shall promptly notify the reporting individual
and his supervising ethics office when the holdings of any par-
ticular asset transferred to the trust by any interested party are
disposed of or when the value of such holding is less than
$1,000;
(iv) the trust tax return shall be prepared by the trustee or
his designee, and such return and any information relating
thereto (other than the trust income summarized in appropriate
categories necessary to complete an interested party’s tax re-
turn), shall not be disclosed to any interested party;
(v) an interested party shall not receive any report on the
holdings and sources of income of the trust, except a report at
the end of each calendar quarter with respect to the total cash
value of the interest of the interested party in the trust or the
net income or loss of the trust or any reports necessary to enable
the interested party to complete an individual tax return re-
[981]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
quired by law or to provide the information required by sub-

section (a)(1) of this section, but such report shall not identify
any asset or holding;
(vi) except for communications which solely consist of requests
for distributions of cash or other unspecified assets of the trust,
there shall be no direct or indirect communication between the
trustee and an interested party with respect to the trust unless
such communication is in writing and unless it relates only (I)
to the general financial interest and needs of the interested
party (including, but not limited to, an interest in maximizing
income or long-term capital gain), (II) to the notification of the
trustee of a law or regulation subsequently applicable to the re-
porting individual which prohibits the interested party from
holding an asset, which notification directs that the asset not be
held by the trust, or (III) to directions to the trustee to sell all
of an asset initially placed in the trust by an interested party
which in the determination of the reporting individual creates a
conflict of interest or the appearance thereof due to the subse-
quent assumption of duties by the reporting individual (but
nothing herein shall require any such direction); and
(vii) the interested parties shall make no effort to obtain infor-
mation with respect to the holdings of the trust, including ob-
taining a copy of any trust tax return filed or any information
relating thereto except as otherwise provided in this subsection.
(D) The proposed trust instrument and the proposed trustee is ap-
proved by the reporting individual’s supervising ethics office.
(E) For purposes of this subsection, ‘‘interested party’’ means a re-
porting individual, his spouse, and any minor or dependent child;
‘‘broker’’ has the meaning set forth in section 3(a)(4) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)); and ‘‘investment ad-
viser’’ includes any investment adviser who, as determined under
regulations prescribed by the supervising ethics office, is generally
involved in his role as such an adviser in the management or control
of trusts.
(F) Any trust qualified by a supervising ethics office before the ef-
fective date of title II of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 shall continue
to be governed by the law and regulations in effect immediately be-
fore such effective date.
(4)(A) An asset placed in a trust by an interested party shall be consid-
ered a financial interest of the reporting individual, for the purposes of
any applicable conflict of interest statutes, regulations, or rules of the Fed-
eral Government (including section 208 of title 18, United States Code),
until such time as the reporting individual is notified by the trustee that
such asset has been disposed of, or has a value of less than $1,000.
(B)(i) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect
to a trust created for the benefit of a reporting individual, or the spouse,
[982]
Rule XXVI § 1103
dependent child, or minor child of such a person, if the supervising ethics

office for such reporting individual finds that—
(I) the assets placed in the trust consist of a well-diversified port-
folio of readily marketable securities;
(II) none of the assets consist of securities of entities having sub-
stantial activities in the area of the reporting individual’s primary
area of responsibility;
(III) the trust instrument prohibits the trustee, notwithstanding
the provisions of paragraph (3)(C) (iii) and (iv) of this subsection,
from making public or informing any interested party of the sale of
any securities;
(IV) the trustee is given power of attorney, notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (3)(C)(v) of this subsection, to prepare on be-
half of any interested party the personal income tax returns and
similar returns which may contain information relating to the trust;
and
(V) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the trust in-
strument provides (or in the case of a trust established prior to the
effective date of this Act which by its terms does not permit amend-
ment, the trustee, the reporting individual, and any other interested
party agree in writing) that the trust shall be administered in ac-
cordance with the requirements of this subsection and the trustee of
such trust meets the requirements of paragraph (3)(A).
* * *
(5)(A) The reporting individual shall, within thirty days after a qualified
blind trust is approved by his supervising ethics office, file with such office
a copy of—
(i) the executed trust instrument of such trust (other than those
provisions which relate to the testamentary disposition of the trust
assets), and
(ii) a list of the assets which were transferred to such trust, includ-
ing the category of value of each asset as determined under sub-
section (d) of this section.
This subparagraph shall not apply with respect to a trust meeting the
requirements for being considered a qualified blind trust under paragraph
(7) of this subsection.
(B) The reporting individual shall, within thirty days of transferring
an asset (other than cash) to a previously established qualified blind trust,
notify his supervising ethics office of the identity of each such asset and
the category of value of each asset as determined under subsection (d)
of this section.
(C) Within thirty days of the dissolution of a qualified blind trust, a
reporting individual shall—
(i) notify his supervising ethics office of such dissolution, and
[983]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(ii) file with such office a copy of a list of the assets of the trust
at the time of such dissolution and the category of value under sub-
section (d) of this section of each such asset.
(D) Documents filed under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this para-
graph and the lists provided by the trustee of assets placed in the trust
by an interested party which have been sold shall be made available to
the public in the same manner as a report is made available under section
105 and the provisions of that section shall apply with respect to such
documents and lists.
(E) A copy of each written communication with respect to the trust under
paragraph (3)(C)(vi) shall be filed by the person initiating the communica-
tion with the reporting individual’s supervising ethics office within five
days of the date of the communication.
(6)(A) A trustee of a qualified blind trust shall not knowingly and will-
fully, or negligently, (i) disclose any information to an interested party
with respect to such trust that may not be disclosed under paragraph (3)
of this subsection; (ii) acquire any holding the ownership of which is prohib-
ited by the trust instrument; (iii) solicit advice from any interested party
with respect to such trust, which solicitation is prohibited by paragraph
(3) of this subsection or the trust agreement; or (iv) fail to file any document
required by this subsection.
(B) A reporting individual shall not knowingly and willfully, or neg-
ligently, (i) solicit or receive any information with respect to a qualified
blind trust of which he is an interested party that may not be disclosed
under paragraph (3)(C) of this subsection or (ii) fail to file any document
required by this subsection.
(C)(i) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate
United States district court against any individual who knowingly and
willfully violates the provisions of subparagraph (A) or (B) of this para-
graph. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such
individual a civil penalty in any amount not to exceed $10,000.
(ii) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate
United States district court against any individual who negligently violates
the provisions of subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph. The court
in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil
penalty in any amount not to exceed $5,000.
(7) Any trust may be considered to be a qualified blind trust if—
(A) the trust instrument is amended to comply with the require-
ments of paragraph (3) or, in the case of a trust instrument which
does not by its terms permit amendment, the trustee, the reporting
individual, and any other interested party agree in writing that the
trust shall be administered in accordance with the requirements of
this subsection and the trustee of such trust meets the requirements
of paragraph (3)(A); except that in the case of any interested party
who is a dependent child, a parent or guardian of such child may
execute the agreement referred to in this subparagraph;
[984]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(B) a copy of the trust instrument (except testamentary provisions)

and a copy of the agreement referred to in subparagraph (A), and a
list of the assets held by the trust at the time of approval by the su-
pervising ethics office, including the category of value of each asset
as determined under subsection (d) of this section, are filed with
such office and made available to the public as provided under para-
graph (5)(D) of this subsection; and
(C) the supervising ethics office determines that approval of the
trust arrangement as a qualified blind trust is in the particular case
appropriate to assure compliance with applicable laws and regula-
tions.
(8) A reporting individual shall not be required to report the financial
interests held by a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is
a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or deferred com-
pensation plan, or other investment fund), if—
(A)(i) the fund is publicly traded; or
(ii) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and
(B) the reporting individual neither exercises control over nor has
the ability to exercise control over the financial interests held by the
fund.
(g) Political campaign funds, including campaign receipts and expendi-
tures, need not be included in any report filed pursuant to this title.
(h) A report filed pursuant to subsection (a), (d), or (e) of section 101
need not contain the information described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) of subsection (a)(2) with respect to gifts and reimbursements received
in a period when the reporting individual was not an officer or employee
of the Federal Government.
(i) A reporting individual shall not be required under this title to report—
(1) financial interests in or income derived from—
(A) any retirement system under title 5, United States Code
(including the Thrift Savings Plan under subchapter III of chap-
ter 84 of such title); or
(B) any other retirement system maintained by the United
States for officers or employees of the United States, including
the President, or for members of the uniformed services; or
(2) benefits received under the Social Security Act.
FILING OF REPORTS
SEC. 103. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the reports
required under this title shall be filed by the reporting individual with
the designated agency ethics official at the agency by which he is employed
(or in the case of an individual described in section 101(e), was employed)
or in which he will serve. The date any report is received (and the date
of receipt of any supplemental report) shall be noted on such report by
such official.
[985]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
* * *
(g) Each supervising Ethics Office shall develop and make available
forms for reporting the information required by this title.
(h)(1) The reports required under this title shall be filed by a reporting
individual with—
(A)(i)(I) the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the case of
a Representative in Congress, a Delegate to Congress, the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, an officer or employee of the Con-
gress whose compensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, an officer or employee of the Architect of the Cap-
itol, United States Capitol Police, the United States Botanic Garden,
the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing Office,
the Library of Congress, or the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (includ-
ing any individual terminating service, under section 101(e), in any
office or position referred to in this subclause), or an individual de-
scribed in section 101(c) who is a candidate for nomination or elec-
tion as a Representative in Congress, a Delegate to Congress, or the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico;
* * *
(ii) in the case of an officer or employee of the Congress as de-
scribed under section 101(f)(10) who is employed by an agency or
commission established in the legislative branch after the date of the
enactment of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989—
(I) the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, as designated in the stat-
ute establishing such agency or commission; or
(II) if such statute does not designate such committee, the Sec-
retary of the Senate for agencies and commissions established in
even numbered calendar years, and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives for agencies and commissions established in odd
numbered calendar years;
* * *
(2) The date any report is received (and the date of receipt of any
supplemental report) shall be noted on such report by such com-
mittee.
(i) A copy of each report filed under this title by a Member or an indi-
vidual who is a candidate for the office of Member shall be sent by the
Clerk of the House of Representatives or Secretary of the Senate, as the
case may be, to the appropriate State officer designated under section
316(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 of the State rep-
resented by the Member or in which the individual is a candidate, as the
case may be, within the 30-day period beginning on the day the report
is filed with the Clerk or Secretary.
[986]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(j)(1) A copy of each report filed under this title with the Clerk of the
House of Representatives shall be sent by the Clerk to the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct of the House of Representatives within
the 7-day period beginning on the day the report is filed.
* * *
(k) In carrying out their responsibilities under this title with respect
to candidates for office, the Clerk of the House of Representatives and
the Secretary of the Senate shall avail themselves of the assistance of
the Federal Election Commission. The Commission shall make available
to the Clerk and the Secretary on a regular basis a complete list of names
and addresses of all candidates registered with the Commission, and shall
cooperate and coordinate its candidate information and notification pro-
gram with the Clerk and the Secretary to the greatest extent possible.
FAILURE TO FILE OR FILING FALSE REPORTS
SEC. 104. (a)(1) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any
appropriate United States district court against any individual who know-
ingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or
report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant
to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against
such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $50,000.
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and willfully—
(i) falsify any information that such person is required to report
under section 102; and
(ii) fail to file or report any information that such person is re-
quired to report under section 102.
(B) Any person who—
(i) violates subparagraph (A)(i) shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both;
and
(ii) violates subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code.
(b) The head of each agency, each Secretary concerned, the Director of
the Office of Government Ethics, each congressional ethics committee, or
the Judicial Conference, as the case may be, shall refer to the Attorney
General the name of any individual which such official or committee has
reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has will-
fully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported.
(c) The President, the Vice President, the Secretary concerned, the head
of each agency, the Office of Personnel Management, a congressional ethics
committee, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, may take
any appropriate personnel or other action in accordance with applicable
law or regulation against any individual failing to file a report or falsifying
or failing to report information required to be reported.
[987]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(d)(1) Any individual who files a report required to be filed under this
title more than 30 days after the later of—
(A) the date such report is required to be filed pursuant to the pro-
visions of this title and the rules and regulations promulgated there-
under; or
(B) if a filing extension is granted to such individual under section
101(g), the last day of the filing extension period, shall, at the direc-
tion of and pursuant to regulations issued by the supervising ethics
office, pay a filing fee of $200. All such fees shall be deposited in the
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. The authority under this
paragraph to direct the payment of a filing fee may be delegated by
the supervising ethics office in the executive branch to other agen-
cies in the executive branch.
(2) The supervising ethics office may waive the filing fee under this sub-
section in extraordinary circumstances.
CUSTODY OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO REPORTS
SEC. 105. (a) Each agency, each supervising ethics office in the executive
or judicial branch, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Sec-
retary of the Senate shall make available to the public, in accordance with
subsection (b), each report filed under this title with such agency or office
or with the Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate.
* * *
(b)(1) Except as provided in the second sentence of this subsection, each
agency, each supervising ethics office in the executive or judicial branch,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the Senate
shall, within thirty days after any report is received under this title by
such agency or office or by the Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate, as
the case may be, permit inspection of such report by or furnish a copy
of such report to any person requesting such inspection or copy. With re-
spect to any report required to be filed by May 15 of any year, such report
shall be made available for public inspection within 30 calendar days after
May 15 of such year or within 30 days of the date of filing of such a report
for which an extension is granted pursuant to section 101(g). The agency,
office, Clerk, or Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be may require
a reasonable fee to be paid in any amount which is found necessary to
recover the cost of reproduction or mailing of such report excluding any
salary of any employee involved in such reproduction or mailing. A copy
of such report may be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge
if it is determined that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public inter-
est.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a report may not be made available
under this section to any person nor may any copy thereof be provided
under this section to any person except upon a written application by such
person stating—
[988]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(A) that person’s name, occupation and address;

(B) the name and address of any other person or organization on
whose behalf the inspection or copy is requested; and
(C) that such person is aware of the prohibitions on the obtaining
or use of the report.
Any such application shall be made available to the public throughout
the period during which the report is made available to the public.
(3)(A) This section does not require the immediate and unconditional
availability of reports filed by an individual described in section 109(8)
or 109(10) of this Act if a finding is made by the Judicial Conference,
in consultation with United States Marshall Service, that revealing per-
sonal and sensitive information could endanger that individual.
(B) A report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph only—
(i) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed the
report; and
(ii) for as long as the danger to such individual exists.
(C) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall submit
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and
of the Senate an annual report with respect to the operation of this para-
graph including—
(i) the total number of reports redacted pursuant to this para-
graph;
(ii) the total number of individuals whose reports have been re-
dacted pursuant to this paragraph; and
(iii) the types of threats against individuals whose reports are re-
dacted, if appropriate.
(D) The Judicial Conference, in consultation with the Department of Jus-
tice, shall issue regulations setting forth the circumstances under which
redaction is appropriate under this paragraph and the procedures for re-
daction.
(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2005, and apply to
filings through calendar year 2005.
(c)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use a report—
(A) for any unlawful purpose;
(B) for any commercial purpose, other than by news and commu-
nications media for dissemination to the general public;
(C) for determining or establishing the credit rating of any indi-
vidual; or
(D) for use, directly or indirectly, in the solicitation of money for
any political, charitable, or other purpose.
(2) The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any person
who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited in paragraph (1)
of this subsection. The court in which such action is brought may assess
against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed $10,000. Such
remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available under statutory
or common law.
[989]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(d) Any report filed with or transmitted to an agency or supervising

ethics office or to the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary
of the Senate pursuant to this title shall be retained by such agency or
office or by the Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may
be. Such report shall be made available to the public for a period of six
years after receipt of the report. After such six-year period the report shall
be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation, except that in
the case of an individual who filed the report pursuant to section 101(b)
and was not subsequently confirmed by the Senate, or who filed the report
pursuant to section 101(c) and was not subsequently elected, such reports
shall be destroyed one year after the individual either is no longer under
consideration by the Senate or is no longer a candidate for nomination
or election to the Office of President, Vice President, or as a Member of
Congress, unless needed in an ongoing investigation.
REVIEW OF REPORTS
SEC. 106. (a)(1) Each designated agency ethics official or Secretary con-
cerned shall make provisions to ensure that each report filed with him
under this title is reviewed within sixty days after the date of such filing,
except that the Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall review
only those reports required to be transmitted to him under this title within
sixty days after the date of transmittal.
(2) Each congressional ethics committee and the Judicial Conference
shall make provisions to ensure that each report filed under this title is
reviewed within sixty days after the date of such filing.
(b)(1) If after reviewing any report under subsection (a), the Director
of the Office of Government Ethics, the Secretary concerned, the designated
agency ethics official, a person designated by the congressional ethics com-
mittee, or a person designated by the Judicial Conference, as the case
may be, is of the opinion that on the basis of information contained in
such report the individual submitting such report is in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations, he shall state such opinion on the report,
and shall sign such report.
(2) If the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Secretary
concerned, the designated agency ethics official, a person designated by
the congressional ethics committee, or a person designated by the Judicial
Conference, after reviewing any report under subsection (a)—
(A) believes additional information is required to be submitted, he
shall notify the individual submitting such report what additional in-
formation is required and the time by which it must be submitted,
or
(B) is of the opinion, on the basis of information submitted, that
the individual is not in compliance with applicable laws and regula-
tions, he shall notify the individual, afford a reasonable opportunity
for a written or oral response, and after consideration of such re-
sponse, reach an opinion as to whether or not, on the basis of infor-
[990]
Rule XXVI § 1103
mation submitted, the individual is in compliance with such laws

and regulations.
(3) If the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Secretary
concerned, the designated agency ethics official, a person designated by
a congressional ethics committee, or a person designated by the Judicial
Conference, reaches an opinion under paragraph (2)(B) that an individual
is not in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the official or
committee shall notify the individual of that opinion and, after an oppor-
tunity for personal consultation (if practicable), determine and notify the
individual of which steps, if any, would in the opinion of such official or
committee be appropriate for assuring compliance with such laws and regu-
lations and the date by which such steps should be taken. Such steps may
include, as appropriate—
(A) divestiture,
(B) restitution,
(C) the establishment of a blind trust,
(D) request for an exemption under section 208(b) of title 18,
United States Code, or
(E) voluntary request for transfer, reassignment, limitation of du-
ties, or resignation.
The use of any such steps shall be in accordance with such rules or regula-
tions as the supervising ethics office may prescribe.
(4) If steps for assuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations
are not taken by the date set under paragraph (3) by an individual in
a position in the executive branch (other than in the Foreign Service or
the uniformed services), appointment to which requires the advice and
consent of the Senate, the matter shall be referred to the President for
appropriate action.
are not taken by the date set under paragraph (3) by a member of the
Foreign Service or the uniformed services, the Secretary concerned shall
take appropriate action.
are not taken by the date set under paragraph (3) by any other officer
or employee, the matter shall be referred to the head of the appropriate
agency, the congressional ethics committee, or the Judicial Conference,
for appropriate action; except that in the case of the Postmaster General
or Deputy Postmaster General, the Director of the Office of Government
Ethics shall recommend to the Governors of the Board of Governors of
the United States Postal Service the action to be taken.
(7) Each supervising ethics office may render advisory opinions inter-
preting this title within its respective jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the individual to whom a public advisory opinion
is rendered in accordance with this paragraph, and any other individual
covered by this title who is involved in a fact situation which is indistin-
guishable in all material aspects, and who acts in good faith in accordance
[991]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
with the provisions and findings of such advisory opinion shall not, as
a result of such act, be subject to any penalty or sanction provided by
this title.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS AND OTHER ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 107. (a)(1) Each supervising ethics office may require officers and
employees under its jurisdiction (including special Government employees
as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code) to file confidential
financial disclosure reports, in such form as the supervising ethics office
may prescribe. The information required to be reported under this sub-
section by the officers and employees of any department or agency shall
be set forth in rules or regulations prescribed by the supervising ethics
office, and may be less extensive than otherwise required by this title,
or more extensive when determined by the supervising ethics office to be
necessary and appropriate in light of sections 202 through 209 of title
18, United States Code, regulations promulgated thereunder, or the au-
thorized activities of such officers or employees. Any individual required
to file a report pursuant to section 101 shall not be required to file a con-
fidential report pursuant to this subsection, except with respect to informa-
tion which is more extensive than information otherwise required by this
title. Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of section 105 shall not apply with respect
to any such report.
(2) Any information required to be provided by an individual under this
subsection shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the public.
(3) Nothing in this subsection exempts any individual otherwise covered
by the requirement to file a public financial disclosure report under this
title from such requirement.
(b) The provisions of this title requiring the reporting of information
shall supersede any general requirement under any other provision of law
or regulation with respect to the reporting of information required for pur-
poses of preventing conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest.
Such provisions of this title shall not supersede the requirements of section
7342 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Nothing in this Act requiring reporting of information shall be deemed
to authorize the receipt of income, gifts, or reimbursements; the holding
of assets, liabilities, or positions; or the participation in transactions that
are prohibited by law, Executive order, rule, or regulation.
AUTHORITY OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL
SEC. 108. (a) The Comptroller General shall have access to financial
disclosure reports filed under this title for the purposes of carrying out
his statutory responsibilities.
(b) No later than December 31, 1992, and regularly thereafter, the Comp-
troller General shall conduct a study to determine whether the provisions
of this title are being carried out effectively.
[992]
Rule XXVI § 1103
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 109. For the purposes of this title, the term—

(1) ‘‘congressional ethics committees’’ means the Select Committee on
Ethics of the Senate and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
of the House of Representatives;
(2) ‘‘dependent child’’ means, when used with respect to any reporting
individual, any individual who is a son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter
and who—
(A) is unmarried and under age 21 and is living in the household
of such reporting individual; or
(B) is a dependent of such reporting individual within the meaning
of section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(3) ‘‘designated agency ethics official’’ means an officer or employee who
is designated to administer the provisions of this title within an agency;
* * *
(5) ‘‘gift’’ means a payment, advance, forbearance, rendering, or deposit
of money, or any thing of value, unless consideration of equal or greater
value is received by the donor, but does not include—
(A) bequest and other forms of inheritance;
(B) suitable mementos of a function honoring the reporting indi-
vidual;
(C) food, lodging, transportation, and entertainment provided by a
foreign government within a foreign country or by the United States
Government, the District of Columbia, or a State or local government
or political subdivision thereof;
(D) food and beverages which are not consumed in connection with
a gift of overnight lodging;
(E) communications to the offices of a reporting individual, includ-
ing subscriptions to newspapers and periodicals; or
(F) consumable products provided by home-State businesses to the
offices of a reporting individual who is an elected official, if those
products are intended for consumption by persons other than such
reporting individual;
(6) ‘‘honoraria’’ has the meaning given such term in section 505 of this
Act;
(7) ‘‘income’’ means all income from whatever source derived, including
but not limited to the following items: compensation for services, including
fees, commissions, and similar items; gross income derived from business
(and net income if the individual elects to include it); gains derived from
dealings in property; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income
from life insurance and endowment contracts; pensions; income from dis-
charge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership income; and in-
come from an interest in an estate or trust;
* * *
[993]
§ 1103 Rule XXVI
(11) ‘‘legislative branch’’ includes—

(A) the Architect of the Capitol;
(B) the Botanic Gardens;
(C) the Congressional Budget Office;
(D) the Government Accountability Office;
(E) the Government Printing Office;
(F) the Library of Congress;
(G) the United States Capitol Police;
(H) the Office of Technology Assessment; and
(I) any other agency, entity, office, or commission established in
the legislative branch;
(12) ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means a United States Senator, a Representa-
tive in Congress, a Delegate to Congress, or the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico;
(13) ‘‘officer or employee of the Congress’’ means—
(A) any individual described under subparagraph (B), other than
a Member of Congress or the Vice President, whose compensation is
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House
of Representatives;
(B)(i) each officer or employee of the legislative branch (except any
officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office) who, for
at least 60 days, occupies a position for which the rate of basic pay
is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic
pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule;
(ii) each officer or employee of the Government Accountability Of-
fice who, for at least 60 consecutive days, occupies a position for
which the rate of basic pay, minus the amount of locality pay that
would have been authorized under section 5304 of title 5, United
States Code (had the officer or employee been paid under the Gen-
eral Schedule) for the locality within which the position of such offi-
cer or employee is located (as determined by the Comptroller Gen-
eral), is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate
of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule; and
(iii) at least one principal assistant designated for purposes of this
paragraph by each Member who does not have an employee who oc-
cupies a position for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or great-
er than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for
GS–15 of the General Schedule;
(14) ‘‘personal hospitality of any individual’’ means hospitality extended
for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organiza-
tion, at the personal residence of that individual or his family or on property
or facilities owned by that individual or his family;
(15) ‘‘reimbursement’’ means any payment or other thing of value re-
ceived by the reporting individual, other than gifts, to cover travel-related
expenses of such individual other than those which are—
[994]
Rule XXVI § 1103
(A) provided by the United States Government, the District of Co-

lumbia, or a State or local government or political subdivision there-
of;
(B) required to be reported by the reporting individual under sec-
tion 7342 of title 5, United States Code; or
(C) required to be reported under section 304 of the Federal Elec-
tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434);
(16) ‘‘relative’’ means an individual who is related to the reporting indi-
vidual, as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, great
aunt, great uncle, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, grandfather,
grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-
in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, step-
mother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half
sister, or who is the grandfather or grandmother of the spouse of the report-
ing individual, and shall be deemed to include the fiance or fiancee of
the reporting individual;
* * *
(18) ‘‘supervising ethics office’’ means—
(A) the Senate Committee on Ethics of the Senate, for Senators,
officers and employees of the Senate, and other officers or employees
of the legislative branch required to file financial disclosure reports
with the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to section 103(h) of this
title;
(B) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House
of Representatives, for Members, officers and employees of the House
of Representatives and other officers or employees of the legislative
branch required to file financial disclosure reports with the Clerk of
the House of Representatives pursuant to section 103(h) of this title;
(C) the Judicial Conference for judicial officers and judicial em-
ployees; and
(D) the Office of Government Ethics for all executive branch offi-
cers and employees; and
(19) ‘‘value’’ means a good faith estimate of the dollar value if the exact
value is neither known nor easily obtainable by the reporting individual.
NOTICE OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH ETHICS AGREEMENTS
SEC. 110. (a) In any case in which an individual agrees with that individ-
ual’s designated agency ethics official, the Office of Government Ethics,
a Senate confirmation committee, a congressional ethics committee, or the
Judicial Conference, to take any action to comply with this Act or any
other law or regulation governing conflicts of interest of, or establishing
standards of conduct applicable with respect to, officers or employees of
the Government, that individual shall notify in writing the designated
agency ethics official, the Office of Government Ethics, the appropriate
committee of the Senate, the congressional ethics committee, or the Judi-
[995]
§ 1103a Rule XXVII
cial Conference, as the case may be, of any action taken by the individual
pursuant to that agreement. Such notification shall be made not later than
the date specified in the agreement by which action by the individual must
be taken, or not later than three months after the date of the agreement,
if no date for action is so specified.
(b) If an agreement described in subsection (a) requires that the indi-
vidual recuse himself or herself from particular categories of agency or
other official action, the individual shall reduce to writing those subjects
regarding which the recusal agreement will apply and the process by which
it will be determined whether the individual must recuse himself or herself
in a specific instance. An individual shall be considered to have complied
with the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to such recusal agree-
ment if such individual files a copy of the document setting forth the infor-
mation described in the preceding sentence with such individual’s des-
ignated agency ethics official or the appropriate supervising ethics office
within the time prescribed in the last sentence of subsection (a).
ADMINISTRATION OF PROVISIONS
SEC. 111. The provisions of this title shall be administered by * * *
* * *
(2) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct of the House of Representatives, as appro-
priate, with regard to officers and employees described in paragraphs (9)
and (10) of section 101(f).
* * *
RULE XXVII
DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS AND STAFF OF

EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS
§ 1103a. Employment sioner shall not directly negotiate or
negotiation disclosure.
have any agreement of future em-
ployment or compensation, unless such Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, within 3
business days after the commencement of such
negotiation or agreement of future employment
or compensation, files with the Committee on
[996]
Rule XXVII § 1103a
Ethics a statement, which must be signed by the

Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner,
regarding such negotiations or agreement, in-
cluding the name of the private entity or entities
involved in such negotiations or agreement, and
the date such negotiations or agreement com-
menced.
2. An officer or an employee of the House
earning in excess of 75 percent of the salary paid
to a Member shall notify the Committee on Eth-
ics that such individual is negotiating or has any
agreement of future employment or compensa-
tion.
3. The disclosure and notification under this
rule shall be made within 3 business days after
the commencement of such negotiation or agree-
ment of future employment or compensation.
sioner, and an officer or employee to whom this
rule applies, shall recuse himself or herself from
any matter in which there is a conflict of inter-
est or an appearance of a conflict for that Mem-
employee under this rule and shall notify the
Committee on Ethics of such recusal. A Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making
such recusal shall, upon such recusal, submit to
the Clerk for public disclosure the statement of
disclosure under clause 1 with respect to which
the recusal was made.
This rule was added in the 110th Congress by Public Law 110–81 (121
Stat. 751). In the 111th Congress clause 1 was amended to apply also
to non-returning Members and a gender-based reference was eliminated
(secs. 2(k), 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). This rule was amended
[997]
§ 1104–§ 1105 Rule XXIX

H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
RULE XXVIII
(RESERVED.)
The rule ‘‘Statutory Limit on Public Debt’’ was repealed in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
§ 1104. Former rule on
public debt limit. For its text and history, see § 1104 of the House Rules
RULE XXIX
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The provisions of law that constituted the

§ 1105. Relations of Rules of the House at the end of the
Jefferson’s Manual
and provisions of law previous Congress shall govern the
to the Rules of the
House.
House in all cases to which they are
applicable, and the rules of par-
liamentary practice comprised by Jefferson’s
Manual shall govern the House in all cases to
which they are applicable and in which they are
not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the
House.
2. In these rules words importing one gender
include the other as well.
Clause 1 was adopted in 1837 (V, 6757), and amended January 3, 1953,
p. 24, when it was also renumbered. When the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, clause 1 was transferred from former rule XLII
and was modified to reference all provisions of law comprising House rules
at the end of the previous Congress (a compilation of which is included
in §§ 1127–1130, infra); and clause 2 was added (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). This rule was redesignated as rule XXVII in the 107th Congress
(sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), redesignated as rule XXVIII in
the 108th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7), and redesignated
as rule XXIX in the 110th Congress (sec. 301, P.L. 110–81). Clause 2 was
amended in the 111th Congress when gender-based references throughout
the rules were eliminated (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l). The
[998]
Rule XXIX § 1105b–§ 1105d
importance of Jefferson’s Manual as an authority in congressional proce-

dure has been discussed (VII, 1029, 1049; VIII, 2501, 2517, 2518, 3330).
3. If a measure or matter is publicly available

in electronic form at a location des-
§ 1105b. Layover
satisfied by electronic
availability.ignated by the Committee on House
Administration, it shall be consid-
ered as having been available to Members, Dele-
gates, and the Resident Commissioner for pur-
poses of these rules.
This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(c)(2), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The 112th Congress provided a transition rule pending
the designation by the committee under this clause (sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
4. Authoritative guidance from the Committee

on the Budget concerning the im-
§ 1105d. Authoritative
guidance of budgetary
levels. pact of a legislative proposition on
the levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct pending, new entitlement author-
ity and revenues may be provided by the chair
of the committee.
This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d)(3), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). This authority elucidates the responsibilities of the
Committee on the Budget under section 312 of the Congressional Budget
Act (see § 1127, infra). The 112th Congress authorized the chair of the
committee to make specified adjustments under this clause pending the
adoption of a certain budget resolution (sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. l).
[999]
LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACTS
HOUSE OFFICES
EARLY ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE
[1001]
PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF

1946 APPLICABLE TO BOTH HOUSES
SECTION 132 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946
(2 U.S.C. 198)
Sec. 132. (a) Unless otherwise provided by the Congress,

the two Houses shall—
adjournment.
(1) adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each
year; or
(2) in the case of an odd-numbered year, provide,
not later than July 31 of such year, by concurrent res-
olution adopted in each House by rollcall vote, for the
adjournment of the two Houses from that Friday in
August which occurs at least thirty days before the
first Monday in September (Labor Day) of such year
to the second day after Labor Day.
(b) This section shall not be applicable in any year if on
July 31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a
declaration of war by the Congress.
The present form of this section is derived from the Legislative Reorga-
nization Act of 1970 (sec. 461; 84 Stat. 1140). Before that revision, the
1946 Act (60 Stat. 812) provided for adjournment sine die of the two Houses
not later than the last day of July each year except during time of war
or a national emergency proclaimed by the President. Presidentially de-
clared emergencies of May 8, 1939, May 27, 1941, and December 16, 1950,
negated operation of the provision (see Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 1, 1949,
p. 10486; Aug. 2, 1949, p. 10591; Aug. 4, 1949, p. 10778).
The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of matters relative to recesses
and final adjournment of Congress (clause 1(n)(2) of rule X).
Under this provision of law, a concurrent resolution providing in an odd-
numbered year for an adjournment of the two Houses
§ 1106a. Not a
statutory adjournment from the first Friday in August until the second day
sine die. after Labor Day or until notified to reassemble pursu-
ant to a joint agreement of the Leadership of the two
[1003]
§ 1107
Houses is called up as privileged, requires a yea and nay vote for adoption
(July 30, 1973, p. 26657), and is not debatable (July 31, 1991, p. 20675);
but the House may adjourn by simple motion on July 31 to meet on August
1 (July 31, 1991, p. 20677). In even-numbered years, and some odd-num-
bered years, the House has agreed to concurrent resolutions waiving the
provisions of this law to provide that the two Houses shall not adjourn
for more than three days or sine die until they have adopted a concurrent
resolution to that effect (July 25, 1972, p. 25145; July 24, 1974, p. 25008;
July 29, 1982, pp. 18562, 18563; July 30, 1986, p. 18146; July 29, 1994,
p. 18615; July 30, 1999, p. 18763). To obviate the necessity to adopt a
concurrent resolution waiving the requirement in section 132 of Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, the House has included the language ‘‘in con-
sonance with section 132(a)’’ in its concurrent resolutions providing for
an August recess (e.g., July 31, 1997, p. 17018; July 25, 2003, p. 19752).
SECTION 141 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946
(2 U.S.C. 145a)
Sec. 141. The Librarian of the Library of Congress is au-

thorized and directed to have bound at the
§ 1107. Preservation of
end of each session of Congress the printed
committee hearings.
hearings of testimony taken by each com-
mittee of the Congress at the preceding session.
This provision became effective on August 2, 1946.
[1004]
JOINT COMMITTEES
The Joint Economic Committee is composed of 10 Members of the Senate
§ 1108. Joint Economic
and 10 Members of the House, who are appointed by
Committee. the President of the Senate and the Speaker, respec-
tively. Each appoints six Members from the majority
and four from the minority (15 U.S.C. 1024(a)). The committee conducts
a continuing study of matters relating to the Economic Report made by
the President and studies means of promoting the national policy on em-
ployment as outlined in the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021).
The committee is required to file, not later than March 1 of each year,
a report with the Senate and the House containing its findings and rec-
ommendations on each of the main recommendations made by the Presi-
dent in the Economic Report. It is authorized to hold hearings and make
other reports to the Congress and to issue a monthly publication on eco-
nomic conditions (15 U.S.C. 1024, 1025). The Full Employment and Bal-
anced Growth Act of 1978 (sec. 302, P.L. 95–523) requires the joint com-
mittee to review and analyze the short-term and medium-term goals set
forth in the Economic Report and to hold hearings on the report. Within
30 days after receipt of the report by the Congress, standing committees
with legislative jurisdiction and joint committees may submit reports to
the joint committee with views and recommendations on matters within
their jurisdiction. On or before each March 15, a majority of the members
of the joint committee are required to submit a report to the Senate and
House Budget Committees, including findings, recommendations, and ap-
propriate analyses with respect to each of the short-term and medium-
term goals set forth in the Economic Report.
The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation is composed of five
Members of the Senate and five Members of the House.
§ 1109. Joint
Committee on Internal The House Members, three from the majority and two
Revenue Taxation. from the minority, are chosen by the Committee on
Ways and Means from the membership of that com-
mittee. The joint committee investigates the operation and effects of the
Federal system of internal revenue taxation. It is authorized to hold hear-
ings at times and places it deems advisable, has subpoena power, and
reports to the Committee on Ways and Means, and, in its discretion, di-
rectly to the House (26 U.S.C. 8001–8023).
[1005]
§ 1110–§ 1112c
The Joint Committee of Congress on the Library is composed of five

§ 1110. Joint
Members of the Senate (the chair and four members
Committee of of the Committee on Rules and Administration) and
Congress on the five Members of the House. House membership consists
Library. of the chair and four members of the Committee on
House Administration (2 U.S.C. 132b). The chair of the
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropria-
tions of the House also serves as a member (sec. 1(a)(4), P.L. 106–554).
The Joint Committee on Printing is composed of five Members of the
§ 1111. Joint
Senate (the chair and four members of the Committee
Committee on on Rules and Administration) and five Members of the
Printing. House (the chair and four members of the Committee
on House Administration) (44 U.S.C. 101). The com-
mittee adopts and employs measures necessary to remedy inefficiencies
or waste in the public printing and binding and the distribution of Govern-
ment publications. It has control of the arrangement and style of the Con-
gressional Record (44 U.S.C. 901–910). The joint committee is directed
to provide for printing in the Record the legislative program for the day,
together with a list of congressional committee meetings and hearings and
the place of meeting and subject matter; and to cause a brief resume of
congressional activities for the previous day to be incorporated in the
Record, together with an index of its contents. Such data is prepared under
the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies is estab-
lished by concurrent resolution in the second session
§ 1112. Joint
Congressional of the Congress preceding a Presidential inauguration
Committee on and is reestablished at the beginning of the next Con-
Inaugural Ceremonies.gress. It is composed of three Members of the House
and three Senators. The three House Members are ap-
pointed by the Speaker and are traditionally the Speaker, the Majority
Leader, and the Minority Leader. The committee is authorized to make
the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect
and Vice President-elect. (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 47, 104th Cong., Aug. 2,
1996, p. 21405; S. Con. Res. 2, 105th Cong., Jan. 7, 1997, p. 143; S. Con.
Res. 89, 106th Cong., Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2720; S. Con. Res. 2, 107th Cong.,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 7).
SELECT COMMITTEES
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is reestablished by the
§ 1112a. Intelligence.
adoption of clause 11 of rule X each Congress.
For a history of select committees in the House, see House Practice,
§ 1112c. Former select
ch. 11, §§ 12, 13. For a discussion of the former Select
committees. Committees on Ethics, see § 738, supra; and for a dis-
cussion of the two former Select Committees on Home-
[1006]
§ 1112c
land Security, see § 723b, supra. For the charter of the former Select Bipar-
tisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurri-
cane Katrina, see House Resolution 437 of the 109th Congress (Sept. 15,
2005, p. 20407). For the charter of the former Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming, see House Resolution 202 of the 110th
Congress (Mar. 8, 2007, p. 5796).
[1007]
Members may send through the mails, under their frank, certain docu-
§ 1113. House
ments and materials as provided by 39 U.S.C. 3210,
Commission on subject to the limitations prescribed in rule XXIV,
Congressional Mailing supra. The House Commission on Congressional Mail-
Standards. ing Standards, composed of six Members, provides ad-
vice in connection with franking privileges (sec. 5, P.L.
93–191).
Rooms in the House Office Buildings are assigned pursuant to the Act
§ 1114. House Office
of May 28, 1908 (2 U.S.C. 2004–2011) and pursuant
Building Commission. to regulations of the House Office Building Commission
(see regulations promulgated Oct. 7, 1996). The com-
mission also issues regulations governing the House Office Buildings,
House garages, and the Capitol Power Plant (see regulations promulgated
December, 1995). The commission is composed of the Speaker and two
Members of the House (traditionally the Majority and Minority Leaders)
(2 U.S.C. 2001).
The preparation, utilization, and distribution (to committees and Mem-
§ 1115. Government
bers) of reports by the Government Accountability Of-
Accountability Office. fice, and its authority to assign its employees to duty
with congressional committees, are regulated by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, §§ 231–236 (84 Stat. 1140; 31
U.S.C. 711–720). This office was formerly known as the General Accounting
Office (31 U.S.C. 702 note).
The Office of Compliance was established by the Congressional Account-
§ 1116. Office of
ability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381). The office is com-
Compliance. posed of five individuals appointed jointly by the Speak-
er, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority
Leaders of the House and the Senate. The office has regulatory, enforce-
ment, and educational responsibilities under the Act. The office replaced
the Review Panel of the Office of Fair Employment Practices at the begin-
ning of the 105th Congress (see § 1101, supra). However, the review panel
was reconstituted in the same form as at the end of the 104th Congress
to provide for the completion of ongoing proceedings in the 105th Congress
(Feb. 25, 1997, p. 2439).
[1009]
§ 1117–§ 1122
The organization of the Congressional Research Service of the Library

of Congress and its responsibilities to assist Members
Research Service. and committees were provided in the Legislative Reor-
ganization Acts of 1946 and 1970 (60 Stat. 836; 84 Stat.
1140; 2 U.S.C. 166).
The Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives
§ 1118. Legislative
evolved from a Legislative Drafting Service established
Counsel. for the Congress by the Act of February 24, 1919 (40
Stat. 1057, 1141). The provisions of law setting forth
the purpose and functions of the current office and providing for its admin-
istration are contained in title V of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 (P.L. 91–510; 2 U.S.C. 281) as amended by the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1972 (P.L. 92–51). As stated in section 502 of such
title V, the purpose of the office is to advise and assist the House, and
its committees and Members, in the achievement of a clear, faithful, and
coherent expression of legislative policies.
The Congressional Budget Office was established by the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601). The office is headed
Budget Office. by a director, who is appointed by the Speaker and the
President pro tempore. Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
602) outlines the functions of the office, which include providing assistance
to the House and Senate Committees on the Budget and Appropriations
and the Senate Committee on Finance in the discharge of matters within
their jurisdiction and to other committees to assist them in complying with
the provisions of the Act.
The Office of the Law Revision Counsel, to develop a codification of the
laws of the United States, was authorized in the 93d
§ 1120. Law Revision
Counsel. Congress by the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974 (sec. 205, H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470, made
permanent law by P.L. 93–544 (2 U.S.C. 285)).
The Office of Technology Assessment, to assist the Congress in indicating
§ 1121. Technology
the beneficial and adverse impacts of the application
Assessment. of technology, was authorized by the Technology As-
sessment Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 472). The office received
funding for 1996 to conduct an orderly shutdown (tit. I, P.L. 104–53) and
has not received funding since then.
A Parliamentarian has been appointed by the Speaker in every Congress
§ 1122. Office of the
since 1927. Before 1927 the ‘‘Clerk at the Speaker’s
Parliamentarian. Table’’ performed the function of the Parliamentarian.
In the 95th Congress the House formally and perma-
nently established an Office of the Parliamentarian to be managed, super-
vised, and administered by a nonpartisan Parliamentarian appointed by
the Speaker (H. Res. 502, Apr. 20, 1977, p. 11415, made permanent law
by sec. 115 of P.L. 95–94; see 2 U.S.C. 287). The compilation and prepara-
tion of the precedents of the House of Representatives were authorized
[1010]
§ 1123–§ 1125b
in the 93d Congress by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (sec.

208, H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470, made permanent law by P.L.
93–554, 2 U.S.C. 28a), and the printing and distribution of the precedents
were authorized by Public Law 94–551 (2 U.S.C. 28b–e). See also 2 U.S.C.
28, 29.
At its organization the 104th Congress established an office to assist
the Speaker in the management of legislative activity
§ 1123. Office of Floor
Assistants. on the floor of the House (Sec. 223(b), H. Res. 6, 104th
Cong., Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469, enacted into permanent law
by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (sec. 103, P.L. 104–
53)).
This office is responsible for responding to inquiries from, and coordi-
§ 1124. Office of
nating visits with, foreign legislative bodies; providing
Interparliamentary assistance to delegations of Members on official visits
Affairs. to foreign nations; coordinating the activities and re-
sponsibilities of the House in connection with participa-
tion in various interparliamentary exchanges and organizations; and ena-
bling the House to host meetings with senior government officials and other
dignitaries in order to discuss matters relevant to United States relations
with other nations (2 U.S.C. 130–2).
The House Recording Studio was established by the Legislative Branch
§ 1125. House
Appropriations Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 123b) and provides
Recording Studio. Members with audio and video recording services. The
studio is under the direction and control of the Com-
mittee on the House Recording Studio, which consists of three Members
appointed by the Speaker (2 U.S.C. 123b(c)).
The United States Capitol Preservation Commission was established in
§ 1125a. United States
1988 (2 U.S.C. 2081) to provide improvements in, pres-
Capitol Preservation ervation of, and acquisitions for the Capitol and to pro-
Commission. vide works of fine art and other property for display
in the Capitol. In the 106th Congress the Commission
was given responsibility for the planning, engineering, design, and con-
struction of the Capitol Visitor Center (sec. 310, Legislative Branch Appro-
priations Act, 2000). Membership on the Commission consists of the Speak-
er, the President pro tempore (co-chairs), the chair and vice chair of the
Joint Committee on the Library, the chairs and ranking minority members
of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on
House Administration, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House
and Senate, three Members of the Senate, and three Members of the House.
The General Counsel appointed under clause 8 of rule II is authorized
§ 1125b. Office of
by law to appear in any proceeding before a State or
General Counsel. Federal court (except the United States Supreme
Court) without compliance with admission require-
ments of such court (2 U.S.C. 130f(a)). Furthermore, the law requires the
[1011]
§ 1125c–§ 1125g
Attorney General to notify the General Counsel of various decisions and

policies (2 U.S.C. 130f(b)).
This office is responsible for mitigation and preparedness operations,
§ 1125c. Office of
crisis management and response, resource services, and
Emergency Planning, recovery operations (2 U.S.C. 130i). The Speaker, in
Preparedness, and consultation with the Minority Leader, provides policy
Operations. direction for, and oversight of, the office. The Speaker
may request the head of any Federal department or
agency to detail to the office, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel
of the department or agency. The day-to-day operations of the office are
carried out by the director, under the supervision of a House of Representa-
tives Continuity of Operations Board, comprising the Clerk, the Sergeant-
at-Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer. The Clerk chairs the board.
This office was established in the 70th Congress when the House re-
§ 1125d. Office of
quested the Secretary of the Navy to detail a medical
Attending Physician.officer to be in attendance at the Hall of the House
during sessions of the House (H. Res. 253, Dec. 5, 1928,
p. 101). Currently, the office provides primary care and emergency, envi-
ronmental, and occupational health services in direct support of Members
of Congress and the Supreme Court, staff, pages, visiting dignitaries, and
tourists (Office of Attending Physician in the U.S. Congress, CRS, Dec.
12, 2001).
This office, which dates from 1793, operates and maintains the buildings
§ 1125e. Office of
and grounds of the Capitol complex. For further infor-
Architect of the mation on the office, see Architect of the Capitol: Ap-
Capitol. pointment Process and Current Legislation, CRS, June
4, 2010. Section 6701 of Public Law 110–28 established
within the office a Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services with respon-
sibility for the operation and management of the Capitol Visitor Center.
Established for the 109th (H. Res. 135, Mar. 14, 2005, p. 4527), 110th
§ 1125f. House
(H. Res. 24, Jan. 30, 2007, p. 2626), 111th (sec. 4(b),
Democracy H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l), and 112th Congresses
Partnership. (which changed its name from the House Democracy
Assistance Commission) (sec. 4(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
2011, p. l), the partnership provides advice and consultation to selected
countries. The partnership consists of 20 Members appointed by the Speak-
er and Minority Leader.
Established for the 110th Congress (H. Res. 1451, Sept. 24, 2008, p.
§ 1125g. Tom Lantos
l), and the 111th and 112th Congresses with modifica-
Human Rights tions to its authority (sec. 4(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009,
Commission. p. l; sec. 4(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l), the com-
mission promotes internationally recognized human
rights. Any Member may join the commission, which is led by co-chairs
appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, respectively.
[1012]
§ 1125h
Established for the 110th Congress (H. Res. 895, Mar. 11, 2008, p. l),
and the 111th and 112th Congresses with a modifica-
§ 1125h. Office of
Congressional Ethics. tion of its authority to engage consultants (sec. 4(d),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; sec. 4(c), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l), the office investigates ‘‘self-initiated’’ alleged ethics viola-
tions and reports its recommendations to the Committee on Ethics.
[1013]
[2 U.S.C. 29a]
(a) Caucus or conference for incumbent Members
reelected to and Members-elect of ensuing Congress;
time and procedure for calling
(1) The majority leader or minority leader of the House
§ 1126. Organizing
of Representatives after consultation with
caucuses. the Speaker may at any time during any
even-numbered year call a caucus or con-
ference of all incumbent Members of his or her political
party who have been reelected to the ensuing Congress
and all other Members-elect of such party, for the purpose
of taking all steps necessary to achieve the prompt organi-
zation of the Members and Members-elect of such party
for the ensuing Congress.
(2) If the majority leader or minority leader calls an or-
ganizational caucus or conference under paragraph (1), he
or she shall file with the Clerk of the House a written no-
tice designating the date upon which the caucus or con-
ference is to convene. As soon as possible after the election
of Members to the ensuing Congress, the Clerk shall fur-
nish each Member-elect of the party involved with appro-
priate written notification of the caucus or conference.
(3) If a vacancy occurs in the office of majority leader or
minority leader during any even-numbered year (and has
not been filled), the chairman of the caucus or conference
of the party involved for the current Congress may call an
organizational caucus or conference under paragraph (1)
by filing written notice thereof as provided by paragraph
(2).
(b) Payment and reimbursement for travel and
per diem expenses for Members attending caucus or
conference; exceptions; regulations governing pay-
ments and reimbursements; reimbursement vouch-
ers
(1)(A) Each Member-elect (other than an incumbent
Member reelected to the ensuing Congress) who attends a
caucus or conference called under subsection (a) of this
[1015]
§ 1126
section, and each incumbent Member reelected to the en-

suing Congress who attends any such caucus or conference
convening after the adjournment sine die of the Congress
in the year involved, shall be paid for one round trip be-
tween his or her place of residence in the district which
he or she represents and Washington, District of Colum-
bia, for the purpose of attending such caucus or con-
ference. Payment shall be made through the issuance of a
transportation request form to each such Member-elect or
incumbent Member by the Finance Office of the House be-
fore such caucus or conference.
(B) Each Member-elect (other than an incumbent Mem-
ber reelected to the ensuing Congress) who attends a cau-
cus or conference called under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion shall in addition be reimbursed on a per diem or
other basis for expenses incurred in connection with his or
her attendance at such caucus or conference.
(2) Payments and reimbursements to Members-elect
under paragraph (1) shall be made as provided (with re-
spect to Members) in the regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Administration with respect to travel
and other expenses of committees and Members. Reim-
bursements shall be paid on special voucher forms pre-
scribed by the Committee on House Administration.
(c) Availability of applicable accounts of House
The applicable accounts of the House of Representatives
are made available to carry out the purposes of this sec-
tion.
(d) Orientation programs for new Members
With the approval of the majority leader (in the case of
a Member or Member-elect of the majority party) or the
minority leader (in the case of a Member or Member-elect
of the minority party), subsections (b) and (c) of this sec-
tion shall apply with respect to the attendance of a Mem-
ber or Member-elect at a program conducted by the Com-
mittee on House Administration for the orientation of new
Members in the same manner as such provisions apply to
the attendance of the Member or Member-elect at the or-
ganizational caucus or conference.
These provisions were originated by a resolution of the 93d Congress
(sec. 202, H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974), which was enacted into permanent
law (effective Jan. 2, 1975) shortly thereafter (P.L. 93–554, Dec. 27, 1974,
88 Stat. 1777). Amendments were effected in the 104th Congress (sec. 202,
P.L. 104–186, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1725), when the House renamed
the committee concerned and converted references to its ‘‘contingent fund’’
[1016]
§ 1126
to ‘‘applicable accounts of the House.’’ Further amendments were effected

at the end of the 108th Congress (to apply beginning in the One Hundred
Tenth Congress) to permit organizational activity to be scheduled for any
period after the general election and before the onset of the new Congress
and to include orientation programs (sec. 107, div. G, P.L. 108–447, Dec.
8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3176).
Under the former form of the statute, contemplating organizational activ-
ity in the month of December, the House occasionally adopted resolutions
allowing earlier convening of an organizational caucus or conference (e.g.,
H. Res. 666, 106th Cong., Nov. 3, 2000, p. 25993; H. Res. 590, 107th Cong.,
Oct. 16, 2002, p. 20812; H. Res. 824, 108th Cong., Oct. 6, 2004, pp. 21212,
21213).
[2 U.S.C. 43b-2]
Staff expenses for House Members attending orga-
nizational caucus or conference
(a) In general
Each Member-elect (other than an incumbent Member
reelected to the ensuing Congress) who attends a caucus
or conference called under section 29a(a) of this title, and
each incumbent Member reelected to the ensuing Con-
gress who attends any such caucus or conference con-
vening after the adjournment sine die of the Congress in
the year involved, shall be entitled to designate one staff
person to be paid for one round trip between that person’s
place of residence, provided such place of residence is in
the district which the Member-elect or incumbent Member
represents, and Washington, District of Columbia, for the
purpose of accompanying that Member-elect or incumbent
Member to such caucus or conference.
(b) Per diem expenses of staff person
Each Member-elect (other than an incumbent Member
reelected to the ensuing Congress) who attends a caucus
or conference called under such section 29a(a) of this title
shall be entitled to designate one staff person who shall
in addition be reimbursed on a per diem or other basis for
expenses incurred in accompanying the Member-elect at
the time of such caucus or conference.
(c) Orientation programs for new Members
With the approval of the majority leader (in the case of
a Member or Member-elect of the majority party) or the
minority leader (in the case of a Member or Member-elect
of the minority party), subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion shall apply with respect to the attendance of a Mem-
ber or Member-elect at a program conducted by the Com-
[1017]
§ 1126
mittee on House Administration for the orientation of new

Members in the same manner as such provisions apply to
the attendance of the Member or Member-elect at the or-
ganizational caucus or conference.
These provisions were originated by a resolution of the 94th Congress
(H. Res. 10, Jan. 14, 1975), which was then enacted into permanent law
(sec. 201, P.L. 94–59, July 25, 1975, 89 Stat. 282). They are codified in
section 43b-2 of title 2, United States Code. Amendments were effected
at the end of the 108th Congress (to apply with respect to the One Hundred
Tenth Congress and each succeeding Congress) to conform to the permis-
sible scheduling of organizational activity for any period after the general
election and before the onset of the new Congress and to include orientation
programs (sec. 107, div. G, P.L. 108–447, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3176).
[2 U.S.C. 43b-3]
Payments and reimbursements for certain House
staff expenses
(a) Payments and reimbursements to staff persons
under section 43b-2 of this title shall be made as provided
(with respect to staff) in the regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Administration with respect to travel
and other expenses of staff. Reimbursements shall be paid
on special voucher forms prescribed by the Committee on
House Administration.
(b) Additional funds, if any, for staff allowances and of-
fice space for use by Members-elect (other than an incum-
bent Member reelected to the ensuing Congress) shall be
authorized by the Committee on House Administration.
These provisions were originated by a resolution of the 94th Congress
(H. Res. 10, Jan. 14, 1975), which was then enacted into permanent law
(sec. 201, P.L. 94–59, July 25, 1975, 89 Stat. 282). They are codified in
section 43b-3 of title 2, United States Code. Amendments were effected
in the 104th Congress (sec. 202, P.L. 104–186, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat.
1725), when the House renamed the committee concerned as the Com-
mittee on House Oversight. (The committee has since been returned to
its earlier name).
[1018]
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT
[1019]
§1
EXCERPTS RELATING TO LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE FROM THE

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
DECLARATION OF PURPOSES
SEC. 2. The Congress declares that it is essential—

(1) to assure effective congressional control over the
budgetary process;
(2) to provide for the congressional determination
each year of the appropriate level of Federal revenues
and expenditures;
(3) to provide a system of impoundment control;
(4) to establish national budget priorities; and
(5) to provide for the furnishing of information by
the executive branch in a manner that will assist the
Congress in discharging its duties.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this Act—

(1) The terms ‘‘budget outlays’’ and ‘‘outlays’’ mean, with
respect to any fiscal year, expenditures and net lending of
funds under budget authority during such year.
(2) BUDGET AUTHORITY AND NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘budget authority’’
means the authority provided by Federal law to incur
financial obligations, as follows:
(i) provisions of law that make funds available
for obligation and expenditure (other than bor-
rowing authority), including the authority to obli-
gate and expend the proceeds of offsetting re-
ceipts and collections;
(ii) borrowing authority, which means authority
granted to a Federal entity to borrow and obligate
and expend the borrowed funds, including
through the issuance of promissory notes or other
monetary credits;
[1021]
§ 1127 §3
(iii) contract authority, which means the mak-

ing of funds available for obligation but not for
expenditure; and
(iv) offsetting receipts and collections as nega-
tive budget authority, and the reduction thereof
as positive budget authority.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON BUDGET AUTHORITY.—With re-
spect to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund,
the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund,
the Unemployment Trust Fund, and the railroad re-
tirement account, any amount that is precluded from
obligation in a fiscal year by a provision of law (such
as a limitation or a benefit formula) shall not be budg-
et authority in that year.
(C) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘new budg-
et authority’’ means, with respect to a fiscal year—
(i) budget authority that first becomes available
for obligation in that year, including budget au-
thority that becomes available in that year as a
result of a reappropriation; or
(ii) a change in any account in the availability
of unobligated balances of budget authority car-
ried over from a prior year, resulting from a pro-
vision of law first effective in that year;
and includes a change in the estimated level of new
budget authority provided in indefinite amounts by
existing law.
(3) The term ‘‘tax expenditures’’ means those revenue
losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws
which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction
from gross income or which provide a special credit, a
preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability, and
the term ‘‘tax expenditures budget’’ means an enumera-
tion of such tax expenditures.
(4) The term ‘‘concurrent resolution on the budget’’
means—
(A) a concurrent resolution setting forth the con-
gressional budget for the United States Government
for a fiscal year as provided in section 301; and
(B) any other concurrent resolution revising the con-
gressional budget for the United States Government
for a fiscal year as described in section 304.
(5) The term ‘‘appropriation Act’’ means an Act referred
to in section 105 of title 1, United States Code.
[1022]
§3 § 1127
(6) The term ‘‘deficit’’ means, with respect to a fiscal

year, the amount by which outlays exceeds receipts during
that year.
(7) The term ‘‘surplus’’ means, with respect to a fiscal
year, the amount by which receipts exceeds outlays during
that year.
(8) The term ‘‘government-sponsored enterprise’’ means
a corporate entity created by a law of the United States
that—
(A)(i) has a Federal charter authorized by law;
(ii) is privately owned, as evidenced by capital stock
owned by private entities or individuals;
(iii) is under the direction of a board of directors, a
majority of which is elected by private owners;
(iv) is a financial institution with power to—
(I) make loans or loan guarantees for limited
purposes such as to provide credit for specific bor-
rowers or one sector; and
(II) raise funds by borrowing (which does not
carry the full faith and credit of the Federal Gov-
ernment) or to guarantee the debt of others in un-
limited amounts; and
(B)(i) does not exercise powers that are reserved to
the Government as sovereign (such as the power to
tax or to regulate interstate commerce);
(ii) does not have the power to commit the Govern-
ment financially (but it may be a recipient of a loan
guarantee commitment made by the Government);
and
(iii) has employees whose salaries and expenses are
paid by the enterprise and are not Federal employees
subject to title 5 of the United States Code.
(9) The term ‘‘entitlement authority’’ means—
(A) the authority to make payments (including
loans and grants), the budget authority for which is
not provided for in advance by appropriation Acts, to
any person or government if, under the provisions of
the law containing that authority, the United States
is obligated to make such payments to persons or gov-
ernments who meet the requirements established by
that law; and
(B) the food stamp program.
(10) The term ‘‘credit authority’’ means authority to
incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guar-
antee commitments.
[1023]
§ 1127 § 300
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) modified
paragraphs (2) and (6) of this section and added paragraphs (7) and (8).
Two separate sections of the 1990 Act amended paragraph (2): section
13201 added a new sentence at the end of the paragraph; section 13211
rewrote the paragraph entirely, effective for fiscal years after 1991. The
text depicted here attempts to harmonize the two; but see 2 U.S.C. 622(2).
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II
of P.L. 99–177) added paragraphs (9) and (10). The Budget Enforcement
Act of 1997 (sec. 10101 of P.L. 105–33) amended the definition of ‘‘entitle-
ment authority’’ in paragraph (9) in conjunction with amendments to sec-
tion 401.
Amounts of liquidating cash provided in the annual bill making appro-
priations for the Department of Transportation are not new budget author-
ity within the meaning of this section, but are merely funds to liquidate
contractual obligations previously incurred pursuant to new discretionary
contract authority previously reported from and scored against allocations
to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation
and Infrastructure) as the authority to enter into obligations that will re-
sult in immediate or future outlays (July 30, 1986, p. 18154).
* * * * *
TITLE III—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS
TIMETABLE
SEC. 300. The timetable with respect to the congres-

sional budget process for any fiscal year is as follows:
On or before: Action to be completed:
First Monday in February ........... President submits his budget.

February 15 .................................. Congressional Budget Office submits
report to Budget Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after Committees submit views and esti-
President submits budget. mates to Budget Committees.
April 1 ........................................... Senate Budget Committee reports
concurrent resolution on the budg-
et.
April 15 ......................................... Congress completes action on concur-
rent resolution on the budget.
May 15 .......................................... Annual appropriation bills may be
considered in the House.
June 10 ......................................... House Appropriations Committee re-
ports last annual appropriation
bill.
[1024]
§ 301 § 1127
On or before: Action to be completed:
June 15 ......................................... Congress completes action on rec-

onciliation legislation.
June 30 ......................................... House completes action on annual
October 1 ...................................... Fiscal year begins.
The date for committees’ submissions of views and estimates was amend-
ed by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10104, P.L. 105–33).
ANNUAL ADOPTION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
SEC. 301. (a) CONTENT OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

THE BUDGET.—On or before April 15 of each year, the
Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution
on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1
of such year. The concurrent resolution shall set forth ap-
propriate levels for the fiscal year beginning on October 1
of such year and for at least each of the 4 ensuing fiscal
years for the following—
(1) totals of new budget authority and outlays;
(2) total Federal revenues and the amount, if any,
by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues
should be increased or decreased by bills and resolu-
tions to be reported by the appropriate committees;
(3) the surplus or deficit in the budget;
(4) new budget authority and outlays for each major
functional category, based on allocations of the total
levels set forth pursuant to paragraph (1);
(5) the public debt;
(6) for purposes of Senate enforcement under this
title, outlays of the old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance program established under title II of the
Social Security Act for the fiscal year of the resolution
and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years; and
(7) for purposes of Senate enforcement under this
title, revenues of the old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance program established under title II of the
Social Security Act (and the related provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for the fiscal year of
the resolution and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.
The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays
and revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability
insurance program established under title II of the Social
[1025]
§ 1127 § 301
Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals required
by this subsection or in any other surplus or deficit totals
required by this title.
(b) ADDITIONAL MATTERS IN CONCURRENT RESOLU-
TION.—The concurrent resolution on the budget may—
(1) set forth, if required by subsection (f), the cal-
endar year in which, in the opinion of the Congress,
the goals for reducing unemployment set forth in sec-
tion 4(b) of the Employment Act of 1946 should be
achieved;
(2) include reconciliation directives described in sec-
tion 310;
(3) require a procedure under which all or certain
bills or resolutions providing new budget authority or
new entitlement authority for such fiscal year shall
not be enrolled until the Congress has completed ac-
tion on any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolu-
tion or both required by such concurrent resolution to
be reported in accordance with section 310(b);
(4) set forth such other matters, and require such
other procedures, relating to the budget, as may be
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act;
(5) include a heading entitled ‘‘Debt Increase as
Measure of Deficit’’ in which the concurrent resolution
shall set forth the amounts by which the debt subject
to limit (in section 3101 of title 31 of the United
States Code) has increased or would increase in each
of the relevant fiscal years;
(6) include a heading entitled ‘‘Display of Federal
Retirement Trust Fund Balances’’ in which the con-
current resolution shall set forth the balances of the
Federal retirement trust funds;
(7) set forth procedures in the Senate whereby com-
mittee allocations, aggregates, and other levels can be
revised for legislation if that legislation would not in-
crease the deficit, or would not increase the deficit
when taken with other legislation enacted after the
adoption of the resolution, for the first fiscal year or
the total period of fiscal years covered by the resolu-
tion;
(8) set forth procedures to effectuate pay-as-you-go
in the House of Representatives; and
(9) set forth direct loan obligation and primary loan
guarantee commitment levels.
[1026]
§ 301 § 1127
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) added para-
graphs (6) and (7) and a new last sentence to subsection (a), added para-
graphs (5)–(8) to subsection (b), and added former section 606 (repealed
by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10118, P.L. 105–33)), requiring
that a concurrent resolution on the budget set forth appropriate levels
for five fiscal years for the matters described in subsection (a). Title III
had previously been comprehensively amended by the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177). Sections
301(a) and 301(b) were amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997
(sec. 10105, P.L. 105–33) to extend the requirement that the term of budget
resolutions be at least five years and to eliminate the requirement that
budget resolutions contain direct loan and loan guarantee levels.
The prescribed content of a concurrent resolution on the budget under
the prior version of section 301 evolved over time. Pursuant to the authority
to include other ‘‘appropriate procedures’’ under then section 301(b)(2) of
the Budget Act, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1981 (which also contained the third concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1980, budget targets for fiscal years 1981 and 1983,
and other related matters) contained new provisions directing House and
Senate committees to report to their respective Budget Committees rec-
onciliation legislation reducing spending for fiscal year 1981 (H. Con. Res.
307, 96th Cong.). The first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1982, in addition to other new ‘‘appropriate procedures,’’ included in
its reconciliation instructions directions to several House and Senate com-
mittees to report reductions in both entitlement spending authority and
discretionary authorization programs sufficient to reduce budget authority
and outlays separately for each of three fiscal years, and included a ‘‘de-
ferred enrollment’’ procedure relating to bills containing new budget au-
thority and entitlement spending authority in excess of allocations to com-
mittees (H. Con. Res. 115, 97th Cong.). The first concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 1983, in addition to other new ‘‘appropriate
procedures,’’ included a binding Federal credit budget for two fiscal years,
containing not only aggregate and functional category targets for new di-
rect loan obligations and new primary and secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, but also (1) prohibiting consideration of bills authorizing new
loan obligations or new loan guarantee commitments not subject to the
appropriations process with certain exceptions (now section 402(a)), and
(2) establishing a ceiling on total new direct loan obligations and new pri-
mary or secondary loan guarantee commitments for the ensuing fiscal year
upon adoption of the second concurrent resolution on the budget for that
year (similar to the section 311 ceiling for direct budget authority). Also
included was a prohibition against consideration in either House of meas-
ures providing new budget or entitlement authority until the reporting
committee filed a report in the House concerning its section 302(b) alloca-
tion (now section 302(c)) and a direction that if a second concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget for fiscal year 1983 was not finally adopted by October
[1027]
§ 1127 § 301
1, then the aggregate amounts in that first concurrent resolution would

become the spending ceilings and revenue floor for the purposes of section
311 (S. Con. Res. 92, 97th Cong.). The first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1984 likewise contained the latter provision, but
also provided that a point of order under section 311 of the Budget Act
would not apply if spending contained in a bill remained within the report-
ing committee’s discretionary allocation under section 302 (section 311(b)
contains a similar exception). The 1984 resolution also contained a new
provision reserving specific amounts of budget authority and outlays for
subsequent allocation to committees by the Budget Committee (H. Con.
Res. 91, 98th Cong.; see also Mar. 6, 1984, p. 4621, for a statement by
Speaker O’Neill describing the operation and effect of the latter provision).
The first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1985 included
a similar provision that it be treated as the second budget resolution for
that year on October 1, 1984, for the purposes of the section 311 spending
ceilings and revenue levels, but that a point of order not apply where the
committee in question had not exceeded its section 302(a) allocations. The
resolution also provided that legislation providing budget authority, enti-
tlement authority, or credit authority not be considered until the reporting
committee filed the requisite report concerning its section 302(b) alloca-
tions (H. Con. Res. 280, 98th Cong.).
In 1986, the first concurrent resolution on the budget since the enact-
ment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(P.L. 99–177), the recommended deficit level for fiscal year 1987 was below
the maximum deficit amount as then specified, thus permitting consider-
ation of the conference reported amendment in disagreement pursuant to
then section 301(i) without a waiver by three-fifths vote in either House
(June 26, 1986, p. 15740). That concurrent resolution also contained a ‘‘con-
tingency fund’’ for deficit reduction and unmet critical needs, additional
general revenue-sharing funding beyond levels contained therein if deficits
were not increased and authorization enacted, and a provision authorizing
a report to be filed by the chair of the House Budget Committee by a
date certain to be printed and to constitute allocations of new budget au-
thority and outlays required by section 302(a) (where the conferees did
not have time to prepare allocations prior to filing of the conference report).
The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1988–1990 con-
tained a provision permitting the first concurrent resolution to ‘‘become’’
a second binding concurrent resolution only at the beginning of the fiscal
year. It also contained a provision encouraging sales of Government assets
to non-Government buyers but providing that amounts realized not be
treated as revenues, receipts, or negative outlays for purposes of specified
budget enforcement and scorekeeping procedures (H. Con. Res. 93, 100th
Cong.). The concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 1989–
1991 and for fiscal years 1990–1992, respectively, each contained a section
stating that, for purposes of allocations and points of order under section
302, amounts realized from asset sales and prepayments of loans would
[1028]
§ 301 § 1127
not be allocated or scored as affecting budget authority or outlays (H. Con.

Res. 268, 100th Cong.; H. Con. Res. 106, 101st Cong.). The concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1989–1991 also contained a section
providing for a subsequent allocation of budget authority and outlays for
fiscal year 1989 upon the reporting by appropriate committees of an anti-
drug initiative (H. Con. Res. 268, 101st Cong.). The concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal years 1995–1999 included provisions (1) adjusting
allocations of budget authority, new entitlement authority, and outlays
and adjusting total levels of budget authority, outlays, and revenues for
health care reform in the House (within a maximum aggregate deficit for
fiscal years 1995–1999), and (2) adjusting committee allocations, budget
aggregates, and the maximum deficit amount contingent on certain IRS
compliance initiatives (H. Con. Res. 218, 103d Cong.). The concurrent reso-
lution on the budget for fiscal years 1996–2002 established a budget sur-
plus allowance contemplating tax reductions only as part of a legislative
package producing a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002; corrected a dis-
parity that had arisen under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 for
the scoring of student loans; and established a process for certifying a
balanced budget before the House could consider a reconciliation bill reduc-
ing taxes (H. Con. Res. 67, 104th Cong.).
Concurrent resolutions on the budget have included reconciliation in-
structions that contemplated reductions in revenues (e.g., H. Con. Res.
95, 109th Cong.), including one that contemplated two bills reducing reve-
nues (H. Con. Res. 178, 104th Cong.).
The concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
included a point of order against consideration in the House or Senate
of a concurrent resolution on the budget for the next fiscal year, or any
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit
for any fiscal year (as determined by the Budget Committee) (sec. 201,
H. Con. Res. 68, 106th Cong.; sec. 201, H. Con. Res. 290, 106th Cong.).
The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 also included
points of order against consideration in the House of a reported bill or
joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon:
(1) that would cause a surplus for fiscal year 2001 to be less than the
level established in the resolution; and (2) that, until January 1, 2001,
contained a directed scorekeeping provision (secs. 202, 203, H. Con. Res.
290, 106th Cong.).
Budget resolutions have established a point of order against a measure
that would cause the total level of discretionary advance appropriations
to exceed a set amount (secs. 202, 203, H. Con. Res. 290, 106th Cong.;
sec. 201, H. Con. Res. 83, 107th Cong.; sec. 301, H. Con. Res. 353, 107th
Cong., deemed in place by H. Res. 428, 107th Cong., May 22, 2002, pp.
8675, 8676, and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 108th Cong., Jan. 7, 2003, p.
10; sec. 501, H. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong.; sec. 401, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th
Cong., May 19, 2004, deemed in place by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May
19, 2004, p. 10105, and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4,
[1029]
§ 1127 § 301
2005, p. 44; sec. 401, H. Con. Res. 95, 109th Cong.; sec. 206, S. Con. Res.
21, 110th Cong.; sec. 302, S. Con. Res. 70, 110th Cong.; sec. 424, S. Con.
Res. 13, 111th Cong. (carried forward by H. Res. 1493, 111th Cong.)). Such
point of order has also been established for a Congress in the absence
of a budget resolution (sec. 3(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
Budget resolutions have provided that new budget authority, new enti-
tlement authority, outlays, and receipts designated as an emergency in
bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or conference reports are not cog-
nizable under specified sections of titles III and IV of the Budget Act.
The budget resolutions also have required to be included in a committee
report, joint statement of managers, or the Congressional Record an expla-
nation of how an emergency item meets certain criteria (sec. 502, H. Con.
Res. 95, 108th Cong.; sec. 402, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004,
deemed in place by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, p. 10105,
and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 402,
H. Con. Res. 95, 109th Cong.; sec. 204, S. Con. Res. 21, 110th Cong.; sec.
301, S. Con. Res. 70, 110th Cong.). The concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2005 also provided that new budget authority, new entitle-
ment authority, and outlays contained in a supplemental appropriation
bill for fiscal year 2005 for overseas contingency operations related to the
war or terrorism were not cognizable under sections 302, 303 and 401
of the Budget Act (sec. 403, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004,
deemed in place by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, p. 10105,
and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44). Budget
resolutions have also provided that new budget authority, outlays, or re-
ceipts resulting from appropriations for overseas deployments and related
activities are not cognizable under titles III and IV of the Budget Act (sec.
207, S. Con. Res. 21, 110th Cong.; sec. 301, S. Con. Res. 70, 110th Cong.).
The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 included
a provision permitting the chair of the Budget Committee to make adjust-
ments to levels and allocations to conform to changes in concepts or defini-
tions and a provision providing for a section 302(b) suballocation to the
full Appropriations Committee for appropriations for the Legislative
Branch (secs. 406, 410, H. Con. Res. 95, 109th Cong.).
The House has adopted resolutions to deem budget resolutions, or por-
tions thereof, to be in place for temporary enforcement (H. Res. 231, July
24, 1985, p. 20181; H. Res. 413, June 19, 1990, p. 14612; H. Res. 477,
June 19, 1998, p. 12991; ; H. Res. 428, May 22, 2002, pp. 8675, 8676;
sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 10; H. Res. 649, May 19, 2004,
p. 10105; sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 2(a), H. Res.
818, May 18, 2006, p. 8651; sec. 511(a)(4), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19
(adopted Jan. 5, 2007); H. Res. 1493, July 1, 2010, p. l). The House has
also directed the chair of the Committee on the Budget to publish in the
Congressional Record budget aggregates and allocations and provided that
such figures be treated as completion of a budget resolution (sec. 2(a),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l)
[1030]
§ 301 § 1127
and in one case further specified the level of an allocation to be so published

by reference to a given fiscal year (H. Res. 38, Jan. 25, 2011, p. l).
(c) CONSIDERATION OF PROCEDURES OR MATTERS WHICH
HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING ANY RULE OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.—If the Committee on the Budget of
the House of Representatives reports any concurrent reso-
lution on the budget which includes any procedure or mat-
ter which has the effect of changing any rule of the House
of Representatives, such concurrent resolution shall then
be referred to the Committee on Rules with instructions to
report it within five calendar days (not counting any day
on which the House is not in session). The Committee on
Rules shall have jurisdiction to report any concurrent res-
olution referred to it under this paragraph with an
amendment or amendments changing or striking out any
such procedure or matter.
(d) VIEWS AND ESTIMATES OF OTHER COMMITTEES.—
Within 6 weeks after the President submits a budget
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, or
at such time as may be requested by the Committee on
the Budget, each committee of the House of Representa-
tives having legislative jurisdiction shall submit to the
Committee on the Budget of the House and each com-
mittee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction shall
submit to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate its
views and estimates (as determined by the committee
making such submission) with respect to all matters set
forth in subsections (a) and (b) which relate to matters
within the jurisdiction or functions of such committee. The
Joint Economic Committee shall submit to the Commit-
tees on the Budget of both Houses its recommendations as
to the fiscal policy appropriate to the goals of the Employ-
ment Act of 1946. Any other committee of the House of
Representatives or the Senate may submit to the Com-
mittee on the Budget of its House, and any joint com-
mittee of the Congress may submit to the Committees on
the Budget of both Houses, its views and estimates with
respect to all matters set forth in subsections (a) and (b)
which relate to matters within its jurisdiction or functions.
Any Committee of the House of Representatives or the
Senate that anticipates that the committee will consider
any proposed legislation establishing, amending, or reau-
thorizing any Federal program likely to have a significant
budgetary impact on any State, local, or tribal govern-
ment, or likely to have a significant financial impact on
the private sector, including any legislative proposal sub-
[1031]
§ 1127 § 301
mitted by the executive branch likely to have such a budg-

etary or financial impact, shall include its views and esti-
mates on that proposal to the Committee on the Budget
of the applicable House.
Section 301(d) was amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997
(sec. 10105, P.L. 105–33) to permit the Budget Committees to set an alter-
nate deadline for submission of committee views and estimates.
(e) HEARINGS AND REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing the concurrent reso-
lution on the budget referred to in subsection (a) for
each fiscal year, the Committee on the Budget of each
House shall hold hearings and shall receive testimony
from Members of Congress and such appropriate rep-
resentatives of Federal departments and agencies, the
general public, and national organizations as the com-
mittee deems desirable. Each of the recommendations
as to short-term and medium-term goals set forth in
the report submitted by the members of the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee under subsection (d) may be consid-
ered by the Committee on the Budget of each House
as part of its consideration of such concurrent resolu-
tion, and its report may reflect its views thereon, in-
cluding its views on how the estimates of revenues
and levels of budget authority and outlays set forth in
such concurrent resolution are designed to achieve
any goals it is recommending.
(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report ac-
companying the resolution shall include—
(A) a comparison of the levels of total new
budget authority, total outlays, total revenues,
and the surplus or deficit for each fiscal year set
forth in the resolution with those requested in the
budget submitted by the President;
(B) with respect to each major functional cat-
egory, an estimate of total new budget authority
and total outlays, with the estimates divided be-
tween discretionary and mandatory amounts;
(C) the economic assumptions that underlie
each of the matters set forth in the resolution and
any alternative economic assumptions and objec-
tives the committee considered;
(D) information, data, and comparisons indi-
cating the manner in which, and the basis on
which, the committee determined each of the mat-
ters set forth in the resolution;
[1032]
§ 301 § 1127
(E) the estimated levels of tax expenditures (the

tax expenditures budget) by major items and
functional categories for the President’s budget
and in the resolution; and
(F) allocations described in section 302(a).
(3) ADDITIONAL CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report
accompanying the resolution may include—
(A) a statement of any significant changes in
the proposed levels of Federal assistance to State
and local governments;
(B) an allocation of the level of Federal reve-
nues recommended in the resolution among the
major sources of such revenues;
(C) information, data, and comparisons on the
share of total Federal budget outlays and of gross
domestic product devoted to investment in the
budget submitted by the President and in the res-
olution;
(D) the assumed levels of budget authority and
outlays for public buildings, with a division be-
tween amounts for construction and repair and
for rental payments; and
(E) other matters, relating to the budget and to
fiscal policy, that the committee deems appro-
priate.
The contents required of a report accompanying a budget resolution were
modified by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10105, P.L. 105–
33).
(f) ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS FOR REDUCING UNEMPLOY-
MENT.—
(1) If, pursuant to section 4(c) of the Employment
Act of 1946, the President recommends in the Eco-
nomic Report that the goals for reducing unemploy-
ment set forth in section 4(b) of such Act be achieved
in a year after the close of the five-year period pre-
scribed by such subsection, the concurrent resolution
on the budget for the fiscal year beginning after the
date on which such Economic Report is received by
the Congress may set forth the year in which, in the
opinion of the Congress, such goals can be achieved.
(2) After the Congress has expressed its opinion
pursuant to paragraph (1) as to the year in which the
goals for reducing unemployment set forth in section
4(b) of the Employment Act of 1946 can be achieved,
if, pursuant to section 4(e) of such Act, the President
[1033]
§ 1127 § 301
recommends in the Economic Report that such goals

be achieved in a year which is different from the year
in which the Congress has expressed its opinion that
such goals should be achieved, either in its action pur-
suant to paragraph (1) or in its most recent action
pursuant to this paragraph, the concurrent resolution
on the budget for the fiscal year beginning after the
date on which such Economic Report is received by
the Congress may set forth the year in which, in the
opinion of the Congress, such goals can be achieved.
(3) It shall be in order to amend the provision of
such resolution setting forth such year only if the
amendment thereto also proposes to alter the esti-
mates, amounts, and levels (as described in subsection
(a)) set forth in such resolution in germane fashion in
order to be consistent with the economic goals (as de-
scribed in sections 3(a)(2) and (4)(b) of the Employ-
ment Act of 1946) which such amendment proposes
can be achieved by the year specified in such amend-
ment.
(g) ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS.—
(1) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
any concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal
year, or any amendment thereto, or any conference re-
port thereon, that sets forth amounts and levels that
are determined on the basis or more than one set of
economic and technical assumptions.
(2) The joint explanatory statement accompanying a
conference report on a concurrent resolution on the
budget shall set forth the common economic assump-
tions upon which such joint statement and conference
report are based, or upon which any amendment con-
tained in the joint explanatory statement to be pro-
posed by the conferees in the case of technical dis-
agreement, is based.
(3) Subject to periodic reestimation based on
changed economic conditions or technical estimates,
determinations under titles III and IV of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 shall be based upon such
common economic and technical assumptions.
(h) BUDGET COMMITTEE’S CONSULTATION WITH COMMIT-
TEES.—The Committee on the Budget of the House of Rep-
resentatives shall consult with the committees of its
House having legislative jurisdiction during the prepara-
tion, consideration, and enforcement of the concurrent res-
[1034]
§ 301 § 1127
olution on the budget with respect to all matters which re-

late to the jurisdiction or functions of such committees.
(i) SOCIAL SECURITY POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be
in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference
report on the resolution) that would decrease the excess of
social security revenues over social security outlays in any
of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution. No
change in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall be treated as affecting the amount of social security
revenues unless such provision changes the income tax
treatment of social security benefits.
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit.
II, P.L. 99–177) modified this portion of section 301 by: (1) inserting a
new subsection on referral of budget resolutions to the Rules Committee;
(2) amending and redesignating existing subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
(d), (e), and (f), respectively; and (3) adding new subsections (g) (which
was amended by Public Law 100–119) and (h). It also added a former
subsection (i), which precluded consideration of a concurrent resolution
on the budget exceeding the pertinent maximum deficit amount absent
a three-fifths vote. That point of order was amended by Public Law 100–
119 and was eliminated by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII,
P.L. 101–508). The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L.
100–418) added paragraph (10) to subsection (e), effective only for fiscal
years 1989 through 1992. Previously, the Full Employment and Balanced
Growth Act of 1978 (P.L. 95–523) amended this section by: (1) adding a
new paragraph (6) to subsection (a) and redesignating the succeeding para-
graph (both of which were later repealed by P.L. 99–177); (2) adding a
new second sentence to subsection (c) (now contained in subsection (d));
and (3) adding a new subsection (e) (now designated as (f)), relating to
the review of the Economic Report as part of the congressional budget
process, and allowing the inclusion in the budget resolution of a timetable
for achieving unemployment goals under the Employment Act of 1946.
The last sentence of subsection (d) was added by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (sec. 102(2), P.L. 104–4; 109 Stat. 62). The Social Secu-
rity point of order contained in paragraph (i) was added by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) and later expanded by
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10105, P.L. 105–33).
The House and Senate completed final action on the first concurrent
resolution on the budget considered under the Congressional Budget Act
by adopting a conference report thereon on May 14, 1975 (p. 14329). That
concurrent resolution contained aggregate figures only for revenues, budg-
et authority, budget outlays, deficit and public debt, because the Budget
Committee had not implemented the functional categories provisions of
the Act for fiscal year 1976.
[1035]
§ 1127 § 302
On May 13, 1976, the House and Senate completed final action on the
first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1977, the first year of full imple-
mentation of title III of the Congressional Budget Act (p. 13776).
COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS
SEC. 302. (a) COMMITTEE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS.—

(1) ALLOCATION AMONG COMMITTEES.—The joint ex-
planatory statement accompanying a conference re-
port on a concurrent resolution on the budget shall in-
clude an allocation, consistent with the resolution rec-
ommended in the conference report, of the levels for
the first fiscal year of the resolution, for at least each
of the ensuing 4 fiscal years, and a total for that pe-
riod of fiscal years (except in the case of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations only for the fiscal year of
that resolution) of—
(A) total new budget authority; and
(B) total outlays;
among each committee of the House of Representa-
tives or the Senate that has jurisdiction over legisla-
tion providing or creating such amounts.
(2) NO DOUBLE COUNTING.—In the House of Rep-
resentatives, any item allocated to one committee may
not be allocated to another committee.
(3) FURTHER DIVISION OF AMOUNTS.—
(A) IN THE SENATE.—In the Senate, the amount
allocated to the Committee on Appropriations
shall be further divided among the categories
specified in section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced
1985 and shall not exceed the limits for each cat-
egory set forth in section 251(c) of that Act.
(B) IN THE HOUSE.—In the House of Represent-
atives, the amounts allocated to each committee
for each fiscal year, other than the Committee on
Appropriations, shall be further divided between
amounts provided or required by law on the date
of filing of that conference report and amounts
not so provided or required. The amounts allo-
cated to the Committee on Appropriations shall
be further divided—
(i) between discretionary and mandatory
amounts or programs, as appropriate; and
(ii) consistent with the categories specified
in section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[1036]
§ 302 § 1127
(4) AMOUNTS NOT ALLOCATED.—In the House of Rep-

resentatives or the Senate, if a committee receives no
allocation of new budget authority or outlays, that
committee shall be deemed to have received an alloca-
tion equal to zero for new budget authority or outlays.
(5) ADJUSTING ALLOCATION OF DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—(A) If
a concurrent resolution on the budget is not adopted
by April 15, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives shall submit
to the House, as soon as practicable, an allocation
under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Appropria-
tions consistent with the discretionary spending levels
in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution
on the budget for the appropriate fiscal year covered
by that resolution.
(B) As soon as practicable after an allocation under
paragraph (1) is submitted under this section, the
Committee on Appropriations shall make suballoca-
tions and report those suballocations to the House of
Representatives.
(b) SUBALLOCATIONS BY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES.—
As soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, the Committee on Appropriations of
each House (after consulting with the Committee on Ap-
propriations of the other House) shall suballocate each
amount allocated to it for the budget year under sub-
section (a) among its subcommittees. Each Committee on
Appropriations shall promptly report to its House sub-
allocations made or revised under this subsection. The
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representa-
tives shall further divide among its subcommittees the di-
visions made under subsection (a)(3)(B) and promptly re-
port those divisions to the House.
(c) POINT OF ORDER.—After the Committee on Appro-
priations has received an allocation pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year, it shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report with-
in the jurisdiction of that committee providing new budget
authority for that fiscal year, until that committee makes
the suballocations required by subsection (b).
(d) SUBSEQUENT CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS.—In the
case of a concurrent resolution on the budget referred to
in section 304, the allocations under subsection (a) and the
[1037]
§ 1127 § 302
subdivisions under subsection (b) shall be required only to

the extent necessary to take into account revisions made
in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on
the budget.
(e) ALTERATION OF ALLOCATIONS.—At any time after a
committee reports the allocations required to be made
under subsection (b), such committee may report to its
House an alteration of such allocations. Any alteration of
such allocations must be consistent with any actions al-
ready taken by its House on legislation within the commit-
tee’s jurisdiction.
(f) LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO POINT OF ORDER.—
(1) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—After the
Congress has completed action on a concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget for a fiscal year, it shall not be in
order in the House of Representatives to consider any
bill, joint resolution, or amendment providing new
budget authority for any fiscal year, or any conference
report on any such bill or joint resolution, if—
(A) the enactment of such bill or resolution as
reported;
(B) the adoption and enactment of such amend-
ment; or
(C) the enactment of such bill or resolution in
the form recommended in such conference report,
would cause the applicable allocation of new budget
authority made under subsection (a) or (b) for the first
fiscal year or the total of fiscal years to be exceeded.
(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution
on the budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in
the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would
cause—
(A) in the case of any committee except the
Committee on Appropriations, the applicable allo-
cation of new budget authority or outlays under
subsection (a) for the first fiscal year or the total
of fiscal years to be exceeded; or
(B) in the case of the Committee on Appropria-
tions, the applicable suballocation of new budget
authority or outlays under subsection (b) to be ex-
ceeded.
(g) PAY-AS-YOU-GO EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Subsection (f)(1) and, after
April 15, section 303(a) shall not apply to any bill or
[1038]
§ 302 § 1127
joint resolution, as reported, amendment thereto, or

conference report thereon if, for each fiscal year cov-
ered by the most recently agreed to concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget—
(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as re-
ported;
(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amend-
ment; or
(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in
the form recommended in that conference report,
would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any
revenue increases provided in legislation already en-
acted during the current session (when added to rev-
enue increases, if any, in excess of any outlay increase
provided by the legislation proposed for consideration)
is at least as great as the sum of the amount, if any,
by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues
should be increased as set forth in that concurrent
resolution and the amount, if any, by which revenues
are to be increased pursuant to pay-as-you-go proce-
dures under section 301(b)(8), if included in that con-
current resolution.
(B) Section 311(a), as that section applies to reve-
nues, shall not apply to any bill, joint resolution,
amendment thereto, or conference report thereon if,
for each fiscal year covered by the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget—
(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as re-
ported;
(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amend-
ment; or
(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in
the form recommended in that conference report,
would not increase the deficit, and, if the sum of any
outlay reductions provided in legislation already en-
acted during the current session (when added to out-
lay reductions, if any, in excess of any revenue reduc-
tion provided by the legislation proposed for consider-
ation) is at least as great as the sum of the amount,
if any, by which the aggregate level of Federal outlays
should be reduced as required by that concurrent res-
olution and the amount, if any, by which outlays are
to be reduced pursuant to pay-as-you-go procedures
under section 301(b)(8), if included in that concurrent
resolution.
[1039]
§ 1127 § 302
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—(A) As soon as prac-

ticable after Congress agrees to a bill or joint resolu-
tion that would have been subject to a point of order
under subsection (f)(1) but for the exception provided
in paragraph (1)(A) or would have been subject to a
point of order under section 311(a) but for the excep-
tion provided in paragraph (1)(B), the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representa-
tives shall file with the House appropriately revised
allocations under section 302(a) and revised functional
levels and budget aggregates to reflect that bill.
(B) Such revised allocations, functional levels, and
budget aggregates shall be considered for the pur-
poses of this Act as allocations, functional levels, and
budget aggregates contained in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 302 was amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177) to: (1) add appropriate levels
of total entitlement authority and total credit authority to the allocations
required by subsection (a), with all levels further divided into mandatory
and discretionary amounts; (2) add new credit authority to the subdivisions
required of the Appropriations Committees by subsection (b)(1); (3) redesig-
nate subsection (c) as (d); and (4) add new subsections (c), (e), (f), and
(g). The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) removed
credit authority from the purview of points of order under this section
by deleting all references to credit authority in subsections (a), (b), (c),
and (f), effective for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1991. That
law also amended subsections (c) and (f) to standardize their application
to bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports. Sec-
tion 302 was further amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997
(sec. 10106, P.L. 105–33) to: (1) permanently extend the requirement that
allocations to the authorizing committees cover at least a five-year period
and to revert the temporary allocations under former section 602 into sec-
tion 302; (2) permit a further allocation among defense, nondefense, and
violent crime reduction funding; (3) modify the Appropriation Committee’s
default allocation; and (4) clarify the Appropriation Committee’s suballoca-
tions to its subcommittees.
Clause 8 of rule XXI, adopted in the 110th Congress, provides that points
of order under title III of the Budget Act apply to unreported measures
(sec. 403, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Previously,
a point of order under section 302(f) operated with respect to a bill or
joint resolution in its reported state and thus did not lie against consider-
ation of an unreported measure (Mar. 21, 1995, p. 8491). The budget resolu-
tion deemed in place for fiscal year 2005 provided that, for purposes of
titles II and III of the Budget Act, the term ‘‘amendment’’ or ‘‘amendment
thereto’’ means an amendment offered or an amendment made in order
[1040]
§ 302 § 1127
as original text or considered as adopted by special order of the House

(sec. 406, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, deemed in place
by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, p. 10105, and by sec. 3(a)(4),
H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).
Points of order under section 302(c) apply separately to the consideration
of bills and amendments, and thus a waiver of points of order against
consideration of an appropriation bill before the filing of a report from
the Appropriations Committee allocating new budget authority among its
subcommittees does not extend to an amendment providing new budget
authority in addition to the amounts contained in the bill (July 13, 1987,
p. 19514). Where the House deemed the adoption of section 302(a) alloca-
tions for the 108th Congress (sec. 3, H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 10), the
Chair sustained a point of order under section 302(c) against an amend-
ment providing new budget authority where the Appropriations Committee
had not reported section 302(b) suballocations (Jan. 8, 2003, p. 225; Jan.
28, 2003, p. 2009 (both sustained by tabling of appeal)).
By way of example, the Chair has held the following as providing new
budget authority in excess of the relevant allocations under section 302(a),
as authoritatively estimated by the Budget Committee pursuant to section
312(a), in violation of section 302(f): (1) a motion to recommit a bill estab-
lishing a Medicare prescription drug benefit program with instructions to
report forthwith an amendment in the nature of substitute containing a
different program (sustained by tabling of appeal) (June 28, 2000, pp.
12736, 12751); (2) an amendment extending eligibility for Foster Care
Maintenance Payments to a new class (Sept. 14, 2005, pp. 20218–20); (3)
an amendment delaying the imposition of a monetary penalty resulting
in a loss of offsetting receipts (July 18, 1991, p. 18860).
An amendment that proposes offsetting increases and decreases in new
budget authority is not subject to a point of order under section 302(f)
(May 9, 1995, p. 12175). Amendments to an appropriation bill making a
series of figure changes intended to offset one another and considered en
bloc are subject to points of order under section 302(f) where the intended
reductions in new discretionary budget authority fail to offset increases
in such authority, so that the net effect of the amendments is to cause
the bill to exceed the appropriate allocation of new discretionary budget
authority made pursuant to section 302(b) for the fiscal year (July 30,
1986, p. 18154).
Where a Senate amendment proposed to increase certain loan guaran-
tees that were estimated by the Budget Committee to breach the sub-
committee subdivision of new credit authority (as then required by this
section), the Chair sustained a point of order under section 302(f) against
a motion to concur therein (Oct. 20, 1990, p. 31517).
Where a limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill was estimated
under former section 302(g) (current section 312(a)) to provide negative
new budget authority in an amount sufficient to avoid a breach of the
pertinent allocation of such authority, an amendment striking the limita-
[1041]
§ 1127 § 302
tion from the bill was held to provide new budget authority causing such
a breach, in violation of section 302(f) (June 26, 1991, p. 16474; June 13,
2000, p. 10501). An amendment proposing to strike from a general appro-
priation bill a proviso stating that a specified increment of new discre-
tionary budget authority ostensibly provided by the bill would ‘‘become
available for obligation only upon the enactment of future appropriations
legislation’’ was held to cause the bill to provide additional new discre-
tionary budget authority in that incremental amount, in breach of the perti-
nent allocation under sections 302 and 602, and therefore in violation of
section 302(f) (June 26, 1996, p. 15563). An amendment proposing to strike
from a general appropriation bill a rescission scored as negative budget
authority was held to provide new budget authority in excess of the rel-
evant allocation under section 302(b) (June 20, 2001, pp. 11248, 11249).
The Chair relies on authoritative estimates from the Committee on the
Budget pursuant to section 312(a) to determine whether an amendment
to a general appropriation bill provides new budget authority in excess
of the relevant allocation under section 302(b) in violation of section 302(f)
(e.g., June 8, 2000, pp. 9942, 9943; June 12, 2000, pp. 10377, 10378; Apr.
2, 2004, pp. 6355, 6374). Such estimates may be provided by the chair
of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXIX.
For a point of order against the motion to rise and report an appropria-
tion bill to the House where the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeds
an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and procedures in the Committee
of the Whole in the event that the point of order is sustained, see § 1044b,
supra.
The 104th Congress authorized the chair of the Budget Committee to
revise existing allocations under this section among committees of the
House to reflect changes in jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X and to
publish the revised allocations in the Congressional Record, to the end
that the revised allocations be effective in the House as though made pursu-
ant to sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(sec. 202(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). The House has adopted resolu-
tions to deem budget resolutions, or portions thereof, to be in place for
temporary enforcement (see annotations under section 301(b) of this Act).
The budget resolution deemed adopted for fiscal year 2003 established a
reserve fund in the House to support an extra allocation for propositions
providing for specified increases in obligation levels for highway spending,
with a special application of section 302(f) to enforce levels of outlays (as
well as budget authority) in that area, and provided for a separate, exclu-
sive section 302(a) allocation for medicare spending (on one-year and 10-
year bases) (sec. 204, H. Con. Res. 353, 107th Cong., deemed in place by
H. Res. 428, 107th Cong., May 22, 2002, pp. 8675, 8676, and by sec. 3,
H. Res. 5, 108th Cong., Jan. 7, 2003, p. 10). The special allocation for
surface transportation was carried in the budget resolution for fiscal year
2004 (sec. 501, H. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong.) and in the budget resolution
[1042]
§ 303 § 1127
deemed in place for fiscal year 2005 (sec. 401, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong.,
May 19, 2004, deemed in place by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004,
p. 10105, and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).
Budget resolutions have established reserve funds in the House to support
extra allocations for various propositions covering a broad range of subjects
(e.g., secs. 201–220, S. Con. Res. 70, 110th Cong.). The House has provided
that, for purposes of subsection (f), certain off-budget discretionary
amounts be included in estimates of budget authority and outlays (sec.
3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET MUST BE ADOPTED BEFORE

BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION IS CONSIDERED
SEC. 303. (a) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolu-

tion on the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to, it
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives, with
respect to the first fiscal year covered by that resolution,
or the Senate, with respect to any fiscal year covered by
that resolution, to consider any bill or joint resolution,
amendment or motion thereto, or conference report there-
on that—
(1) first provides new budget authority for that fis-
cal year;
(2) first provides an increase or decrease in reve-
nues during that fiscal year;
(3) provides an increase or decrease in the public
debt limit to become effective during that fiscal year;
(4) in the Senate only, first provides new entitle-
ment authority for that fiscal year; or
(5) in the Senate only, first provides for an increase
or decrease in outlays for that fiscal year.
(b) EXCEPTIONS IN THE HOUSE.—In the House of Rep-
resentatives, subsection (a) does not apply—
(1)(A) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported,
providing advance discretionary new budget authority
that first becomes available for the first or second fis-
cal year after the budget year; or
(B) to any bill or joint resolution, as reported, first
increasing or decreasing revenues in a fiscal year fol-
lowing the fiscal year to which the concurrent resolu-
tion applies;
(2) after May 15, to any general appropriation bill
or amendment thereto; or
(3) to any bill or joint resolution unless it is re-
ported by a committee.
(c) APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATION MEASURES IN THE
SENATE.—
[1043]
§ 1127 § 303
(1) IN GENERAL.—Until the concurrent resolution on

the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to and an
allocation has been made to the Committee on Appro-
priations of the Senate under section 302(a) for that
year, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
any appropriation bill or joint resolution, amendment
or motion thereto, or conference report thereon for
that year or any subsequent year.
(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) does not apply to ap-
propriations legislation making advance appropria-
tions for the first or second fiscal year after the year
the allocation referred to in that paragraph is made.
II, P.L. 99–177) amended subsection 303(a) by: (1) adding the phrase ‘‘as
reported to the House or Senate’’; (2) modifying paragraph (4) to apply
to new entitlement authority; and (3) adding a paragraph (5) relating to
new credit authority. The same law amended subsection (b) by adding the
May 15th exception for general appropriation bills. The Budget Enforce-
ment Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) amended subsection (a) to stand-
ardize its application to bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, and
conference reports, and by deleting the reference in paragraph (5) to new
credit authority. That law also subdivided subsection (b) into paragraphs
relating to exceptions in the House and Senate. Section 303 was rewritten
by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10107, P.L. 105–33) to simplify
the section, drop obsolete provisions, make certain conforming changes,
and eliminate references to ‘‘new entitlement authority’’ in the House and
‘‘new credit authority.’’
a point of order under section 303(a) operated with respect to a bill or
ation of an unreported measure (Mar. 21, 1995, p. 8491), although it did
lie against consideration of an amendment to an unreported measure (July
24, 1998, p. 17278). The budget resolution deemed in place for fiscal year
2005 provided that, for purposes of titles II and III of the Budget Act,
the term ‘‘amendment’’ or ‘‘amendment thereto’’ means an amendment of-
fered or an amendment made in order as original text or considered as
adopted by special order of the House (sec. 406, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th
Cong., May 19, 2004, deemed in place by H. Res. 649, 108th Cong., May
19, 2004, p. 10105, and by sec. 3(a)(4), H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4,
2005, p. 44).
A conference report containing revenue-sharing provisions in the form
of new entitlement authority as described in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the
Budget Act to become effective in fiscal years 1978 through 1980 in
amounts greater than the amount in fiscal year 1977 was ruled out on
[1044]
§ 303 § 1127
a point of order under section 303(a), because the first concurrent resolution
on the budget for those future fiscal years had not yet been adopted and
the increased entitlements could not be considered mere continuations of
entitlement authority that became effective in fiscal year 1977 (for which
a concurrent resolution had been adopted), and because the section 303(b)
exception permitting certain advance budget authority does not apply in
the case of new entitlement authority (Speaker Albert, Sept. 30, 1976, p.
34074). An amendment providing new budget authority for a fiscal year
before adoption of a budget resolution for that year was held to violate
section 303, where points of order under that section had been waived
against the pending bill but not against amendments (Aug. 1, 1984, p.
21871; July 17, 1985, pp. 19435, 19463 (amendment contained in motion
to recommit with instructions)).
To a bill providing eligibility for certain entitlement benefits to become
effective in the fiscal year for which a budget resolution had been adopted,
an amendment allowing a deduction in computing household income to
determine eligibility effective in the next following fiscal year, to reflect
changes in shelter and utility costs, was ruled out as providing new entitle-
ment authority to become effective in a fiscal year for which a concurrent
resolution on the budget had not been adopted, in violation of section
303(a)(4) (July 27, 1977, p. 25222).
To a bill partially replacing an existing mandatory student loan (entitle-
ment) program with a new discretionary program, an amendment reducing
the discretionary program and commensurately restoring the mandatory
program was held to violate section 303(a) by providing new entitlement
authority for the ensuing fiscal year before the adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year (Mar. 26, 1992, p. 7173).
Amendments enlarging the class of persons eligible for, or increasing the
amount of, a Government subsidy (lower interest payments on student
loans) have been held to violate section 303(a) by providing new entitlement
authority for the ensuing fiscal year before the adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year (Mar. 26, 1992, pp. 7184, 7186,
7227, 7231, 7236).
An amendment repealing an agricultural marketing (entitlement) pro-
gram for peanuts over a five-year period was nevertheless held to provide
new budget authority for the ensuing fiscal year before the adoption of
the budget resolution for that year, in violation of section 303(a), where
the Chair was persuaded by estimates from the Congressional Budget Of-
fice that economic conditions under that repeal would result in decreased
receipts and increased Federal outlays during that first fiscal year (July
25, 1990, p. 19155).
An amendment imposing fees on generated electric energy, to be depos-
ited in a trust fund, and effective in the ensuing fiscal year, was held
to violate section 303(a) by increasing revenues effective in the ensuing
fiscal year, for which a budget resolution had yet to be adopted (July 23,
1985, p. 20041). An amendment striking a revenue provision in a pending
[1045]
§ 1127 § 304
unreported bill and proposing to insert an alternative revenue provision

was held to violate section 303(a) (July 24, 1998, p. 17278).
The Budget Committee of the House determined, as stated in its second
report on the implementation of congressional budget procedures for fiscal
year 1976 (H. Rept. No. 94–457, Oct. 8, 1975), that the section 303(b) ex-
emption for certain advance budget or revenue authority ceases to apply
with the beginning of the fiscal year in question. Therefore, on or after
October 1, 1975, the beginning of fiscal year 1976, budget authority or
revenue measures to become effective in fiscal year 1977, could no longer
be considered under the 303(b) exception but would have to await the final
adoption in May of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1977. But the Senate in the 95th Congress overruled a decision of
its presiding officer holding that the section 303(b) exemption ceased to
apply after the beginning of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for
which revenue changes were proposed (Oct. 5, 1978, pp. 33945–50).
In the 106th through 112th Congresses, the House adopted an order
to enforce a 303(a) point of order against a reported bill or joint resolution
considered under a special order of business on the basis of text made
in order as original text (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec.
3(b)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003,
p. 10; sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(a)(2), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. l; (sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
The House has adopted resolutions to deem budget resolutions, or por-
tions thereof, to be in place for temporary enforcement (see annotations
under section 301(b) of this Act).
PERMISSIBLE REVISIONS OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS ON THE BUDGET
SEC. 304. At any time after the concurrent resolution on

the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to pursuant
to section 301, and before the end of such fiscal year, the
two Houses may adopt a concurrent resolution on the
budget which revises or reaffirms the concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget for such fiscal year most recently
agreed to.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) deleted
a subsection (b), relating to maximum deficit amount requirements for
revised budget resolutions, that had been added by the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177), and redes-
ignated the subsection on economic assumptions, originally added by Public
Law 100–119, as (b). The latter subsection (b) was deleted by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10108, P.L. 105–33). Although not a section
304 revision, the House has by simple resolution modified amounts in
House enforcement provisions of a concurrent resolution on the budget
(sec. 2, H. Res. 665, July 22, 2009, p. l).
[1046]
§ 305 § 1127
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT

RESOLUTIONS ON THE BUDGET
SEC. 305. (a) PROCEDURE IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-

TIVES AFTER REPORT OF COMMITTEE; DEBATE.—
(1) When a concurrent resolution on the budget has
been reported by the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives and has been referred to the
appropriate calendar of the House, it shall be in order
on any day thereafter, subject to clause 2(l)(6) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to
move to proceed to the consideration of the concurrent
resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is not
debatable. An amendment to the motion is not in
order and it is not in order to move to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(2) General debate on any concurrent resolution on
the budget in the House of Representatives shall be
limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be di-
vided equally between the majority and minority par-
ties, plus such additional hours of debate as are con-
sumed pursuant to paragraph (3). A motion further to
limit debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit
the concurrent resolution is not in order, and it is not
in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
concurrent resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
(3) Following the presentation of opening state-
ments on the concurrent resolution on the budget for
a fiscal year by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget of the
House, there shall be a period of up to four hours for
debate on economic goals and policies.
(4) Only if a concurrent resolution on the budget re-
ported by the Committee on the Budget of the House
sets forth the economic goals (as described in sections
3(a)(2) and (4)(b) of the Full Employment Act of 1946)
which the estimates, amounts, and levels (as de-
scribed in section 301(a)) set forth in such resolution
are designed to achieve, shall it be in order to offer to
such resolution an amendment relating to such goals,
and such amendment shall be in order only if it also
proposes to alter such estimates, amounts, and levels
in germane fashion in order to be consistent with the
goals proposed in such amendment.
(5) Consideration of any concurrent resolution on
the budget by the House of Representatives shall be
in the Committee of the Whole, and the resolution
[1047]
§ 1127 § 305
shall be considered for amendment under the five-

minute rule in accordance with the applicable provi-
sions of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives. After the Committee rises and reports
the resolution back to the House, the previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the resolution
and any amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion; except that it shall be in order at
any time prior to final passage (notwithstanding any
other rule or provision of law) to adopt an amendment
(or a series of amendments) changing any figure or
figures in the resolution as so reported to the extent
necessary to achieve mathematical consistency.
(6) Debate in the House of Representatives on the
conference report on any concurrent resolution on the
budget shall be limited to not more than 5 hours,
which shall be divided equally between the majority
and minority parties. A motion further to limit debate
is not debatable. A motion to recommit the conference
report is not in order, and it is not in order to move
to reconsider the vote by which the conference report
is agreed to or disagreed to.
(7) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives to the procedure relating to any concur-
rent resolution on the budget shall be decided without
debate.
II, P.L. 99–177) amended section 305 in several places, with the most im-
portant changes being the reduction in the availability requirement for
the committee report on a budget resolution to five days (from 10) and
the addition of a one-day availability requirement for any report thereon
from the Rules Committee. The Full Employment and Balanced Growth
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95–523) amended this subsection by adding subpara-
graphs (3) and (4) and making conforming changes relating to debate and
amendments on economic goals and policies during consideration of the
first concurrent resolution on the budget in the House. A similar addition
relating to Senate procedure was made in subparagraphs (3) and (4). The
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10109, P.L. 105–33) amended section
305(a)(1) to provide a three-day layover requirement for the concurrent
resolution on the budget.
General debate on economic goals and policies under subsection (a)(3)
must be confined to that subject (Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8815). Clause 10 of
rule XVIII (former clause 8 of rule XXVIII), as added in the 95th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53–70) requires that any concurrent resolution
on the budget (consisting of both aggregate totals and functional categories)
[1048]
§ 305 § 1127
be considered as read and open to amendment at any point, and unanimous

consent is required to read such a concurrent resolution by section in order
to allow amendments to aggregates to be considered before amendments
to functional categories (May 2, 1978, pp. 12074, 12075). Clause 10 of rule
XVIII (former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was further amended in the 96th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16) to require that amendments
to budget resolutions achieve mathematical consistency and contain all
the matter set forth in subsections 301(a)(1) through (5). On one occasion,
the chair of the Budget Committee offered a ‘‘mathematical consistency’’
amendment in Committee of the Whole, rather than in the House (Apr.
29, 1976, p. 11916).
A concurrent resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a divi-
sion of the question if, for example, the resolution grammatically and sub-
stantively relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp. 10185–87) or
includes a separate, hortatory section having its own grammatical and
substantive meaning (Mar. 5, 1992, p. 4675).
Where a perfecting amendment changing several figures in a concurrent
resolution on the budget was pending in Committee of the Whole, the Chair
indicated that adoption of that amendment would preclude a further
amendment merely changing those figures but would not preclude a more
comprehensive amendment changing other (unamended) portions of the
resolution (Apr. 28, 1976, p. 11599).
Although under this paragraph there can be up to five hours of debate
on a conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget, where
the conferees report in total disagreement, debate on the motion to dispose
of the amendment in disagreement is under the ‘‘hour rule’’ and is equally
divided and controlled between the majority and minority parties under
clause 8(d) of rule XXII (former clause 2 of rule XXVIII) (May 13, 1976,
p. 13756; Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30182).
A concurrent resolution on the budget providing for the production of
three separate reconciliation bills, including a reconciliation bill that lowers
revenues, is privileged in the Senate under section 305(b) (May 21, 1996,
pp. 11937–41).
In the 96th Congress, for the first time, the Rules Committee reported
and the House adopted a special order permitting only certain designated
amendments to be offered to a concurrent resolution on the budget (H.
Res. 642, Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8789). The House has adopted similar ‘‘modified-
closed rules’’ for the consideration of concurrent resolutions on the budget
in each subsequent Congress. In the 98th Congress, a special order (H.
Res. 144, Mar. 22, 1983, p. 6503) waiving the existing 10-day layover re-
quirement of section 305(a)(1) was construed not to have waived the sepa-
rate three-day layover requirement of clause 4 of rule XIII (former clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI, amended in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39) to conform to the five-day layover requirement of this section). The
House has adopted resolutions to deem budget resolutions, or portions
[1049]
§ 1127 § 305
thereof, to be in place for temporary enforcement (see annotations under

section 301(b) of this Act).
(b) PROCEDURE IN SENATE AFTER REPORT OF COM-
MITTEE; DEBATE; AMENDMENTS.—
(1) Debate in the Senate on any concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget, and all amendments thereto and
debatable motions and appeals in connection there-
with, shall be limited to not more than 50 hours, ex-
cept that with respect to any concurrent resolution re-
ferred to in section 304(a) all such debate shall be lim-
ited to not more than 15 hours. The time shall be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the major-
ity leader and the minority leader or their designees.
(2) Debate in the Senate on any amendment to a
concurrent resolution on the budget shall be limited to
2 hours, to be equally divided between, and controlled
by, the mover and the manager of the concurrent res-
olution, and debate on any amendment to an amend-
ment, debatable motion, or appeal shall be limited to
1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled
by, the mover and the manager of the concurrent res-
olution, except that in the event the manager of the
concurrent resolution is in favor of any such amend-
ment, motion, or appeal, the time in opposition there-
to shall be controlled by the minority leader or his
designee. No amendment that is not germane to the
provisions of such concurrent resolution shall be re-
ceived. Such leaders, or either of them, may, from the
time under their control on the passage of the concur-
rent resolution, allot additional time to any Senator
during the consideration of any amendment, debat-
able motion, or appeal.
(3) Following the presentation of opening state-
ments on the concurrent resolution on the budget for
a fiscal year by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget of the Sen-
ate, there shall be a period of up to four hours for de-
bate on economic goals and policies.
(4) Subject to the other limitations of this Act, only
if a concurrent resolution on the budget reported by
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate sets forth
the economic goals (as described in sections 3(a)(2)
and 4(b) of the Employment Act of 1946) which the es-
timates, amounts, and levels (as described in section
301(a)) set forth in such resolution are designed to
achieve, shall it be in order to offer to such resolution
[1050]
§ 305 § 1127
an amendment relating to such goals, and such

amendment shall be in order only if it also proposes
to alter such estimates, amounts, and levels in ger-
mane fashion in order to be consistent with the goals
proposed in such amendment.
(5) A motion to further limit debate is not debat-
able. A motion to recommit (except a motion to recom-
mit with instructions to report back within a specified
number of days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day
on which the Senate is not in session) is not in order.
Debate on any such motion to recommit shall be lim-
ited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and con-
trolled by, the mover and the manager of the concur-
rent resolution.
(6) Notwithstanding any other rule, an amendment
or series of amendments to a concurrent resolution on
the budget proposed in the Senate shall always be in
order if such amendment or series of amendments
proposes to change any figure or figures then con-
tained in such concurrent resolution so as to make
such concurrent resolution mathematically consistent
or so as to maintain such consistency.
(c) ACTION ON CONFERENCE REPORTS IN THE SENATE.—
(1) A motion to proceed to the consideration of the
conference report on any concurrent resolution on the
budget (or a reconciliation bill or resolution) may be
made even though a previous motion to the same ef-
fect has been disagreed to.
(2) During the consideration in the Senate of the
conference report (or a message between Houses) on
any concurrent resolution on the budget, and all
amendments in disagreement, and all amendments
thereto, and debatable motions and appeals in connec-
tion therewith, debate shall be limited to 10 hours, to
be equally divided between, and controlled by, the ma-
jority leader and minority leader or their designees.
Debate on any debatable motion or appeal related to
the conference report (or a message between Houses)
shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided be-
tween, and controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the conference report (or a message between
Houses).
(3) Should the conference report be defeated, debate
on any request for a new conference and the appoint-
ment of conferees shall be limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the man-
[1051]
§ 1127 § 306
ager of the conference report and the minority leader

or his designee, and should any motion be made to in-
struct the conferees before the conferees are named,
debate on such motion shall be limited to one-half
hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled
by, the mover and the manager of the conference re-
port. Debate on any amendment to any such instruc-
tions shall be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally di-
vided between and controlled by the mover and the
manager of the conference report. In all cases when
the manager of the conference report is in favor of any
motion, appeal, or amendment, the time in opposition
shall be under the control of the minority leader or
his designee.
(4) In any case in which there are amendments in
disagreement, time on each amendment shall be lim-
ited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the manager of the conference report
and the minority leader or his designee. No amend-
ment that is not germane to the provisions of such
amendments shall be received.
(d) CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MUST BE CONSISTENT IN
THE SENATE.—It shall not be in order in the Senate to
vote on the question of agreeing to—
(1) a concurrent resolution on the budget unless the
figures then contained in such resolution are mathe-
matically consistent; or
(2) a conference report on a concurrent resolution on
the budget unless the figures contained in such reso-
lution, as recommended in such conference report, are
mathematically consistent.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) deleted
a subsection (d), which required action by budget conferees within seven
days, and redesignated the succeeding subsection.
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET MUST BE HANDLED

BY BUDGET COMMITTEES
SEC. 306. No bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or

conference report, dealing with any matter which is within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget of either
House shall be considered in that House unless it is a bill
or resolution which has been reported by the Committee
on the Budget of that House (or from the consideration of
which such committee has been discharged) or unless it is
an amendment to such a bill or resolution.
[1052]
§ 307 § 1127
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) amended
this section by standardizing its application to any bill, resolution, amend-
ment, motion, or conference report. In the 107th through 112th Congresses,
the House adopted orders construing the term ‘‘resolution’’ as ‘‘joint resolu-
tion’’ (sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; sec. 3(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 2003, p. 10; sec. 3(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(a)(1),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007); sec. 3(a)(1), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; (sec. 3(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The
104th and 105th Congresses expanded the legislative jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Budget (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463;
sec. 5, H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). See clause 1(e) of rule X, supra.
Pursuant to section 4(a)(4) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
(tit. I, P.L. 111–139), a designation regarding budgetary effects under that
Act is not considered a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Budget for purposes of section 306 enforcement.
A special order of business adopted by the House providing for consider-
ation of an unreported concurrent resolution on the budget upon the Speak-
er’s declaration that the House be resolved into the Committee of the Whole
has the effect of discharging the Committee on the Budget when so an-
nounced by the Speaker, and need not contain the term ‘‘discharge’’ or
waive points of order under this section, because the concurrent resolution
is effectively discharged consistent with, and not in violation of, this section
(Mar. 13, 1986, p. 4638).
The following were held to violate this section: (1) an amendment direct-
ing that certain lease-purchase agreements be scored on an annual basis
for budget purposes (July 19, 1999, p. 16615); and (2) an amendment desig-
nating an appropriation as ‘‘emergency spending’’ within the meaning of
the budget-enforcement laws (Sept. 8, 1999, p. 20930).
In the Senate, to an omnibus revenue bill reported from the Senate Com-
mittee on Finance containing certain tax credits, an amendment expressing
the sense of Congress that under the Congressional Budget Act process
the continuation of tax credits would be offset by reductions in Federal
spending was held to violate section 306 and was ruled out of order (June
18, 1976, pp. 19089–97). In the Senate, to a bill making comprehensive
amendments to the Social Security Act, an amendment removing social
security trust funds from the ‘‘unified budget’’ and establishing separate
aggregate and functional categories in all concurrent resolutions on the
budget for social security trust funds was held to be a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee and ruled out of order under
section 306 (Mar. 22, 1983, p. 6590).
HOUSE COMMITTEE ACTION ON ALL APPROPRIATION BILLS TO BE

COMPLETED BY JUNE 10
SEC. 307. On or before June 10 of each year, the Com-

mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
shall report annual appropriation bills providing new
[1053]
§ 1127 § 308
budget authority under the jurisdiction of all of its sub-

committees for the fiscal year which begins on October 1
of that year.
This section was rewritten by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-
icit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177) to establish June 10th as
the annual target date for completion of House committee action on all
regular appropriation bills.
REPORTS, SUMMARIES, AND PROJECTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACTIONS
SEC. 308. (a) LEGISLATION PROVIDING NEW BUDGET AU-

THORITY OR PROVIDING AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN REV-
ENUES OR TAX EXPENDITURES.—
(1) Whenever a committee of either House reports
to its House a bill or joint resolution, or committee
amendment thereto, providing new budget authority
(other than continuing appropriations) or providing an
increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures
for a fiscal year (or fiscal years), the report accom-
panying that bill or joint resolution shall contain a
statement, or the committee shall make available
such a statement in the case of an approved com-
mittee amendment which is not reported to its House,
prepared after consultation with the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office—
(A) comparing the levels in such measure to the
appropriate allocations in the reports submitted
under section 302(b) for the most recently agreed
to concurrent resolution on the budget for such
fiscal year (or fiscal years);
(B) containing a projection by the Congressional
Budget Office of how such measure will affect the
levels of such budget authority, budget outlays,
revenues, or tax expenditures under existing law
for such fiscal year (or fiscal years) and each of
the four ensuing fiscal years, if timely submitted
before such report is filed; and
(C) containing an estimate by the Congressional
Budget Office of the level of new budget authority
for assistance to State and local governments pro-
vided by such measure, if timely submitted before
such report is filed.
(2) Whenever a conference report is filed in either
House and such conference report or any amendment
reported in disagreement or any amendment con-
[1054]
§ 308 § 1127
tained in the joint statement of managers to be pro-

posed by the conferees in the case of technical dis-
agreement on such bill or joint resolution provides
new budget authority (other than continuing appro-
priations) or provides an increase or decrease in reve-
nues for a fiscal year (or fiscal years), the statement
of managers accompanying such conference report
shall contain the information described in paragraph
(1), if available on a timely basis. If such information
is not available when the conference report is filed,
the committee shall make such information available
to Members as soon as practicable prior to the consid-
eration of such conference report.
(3) CBO PAYGO ESTIMATES.—
(A) The Chairs of the Committees on the Budg-
et of the House and Senate, as applicable, shall
request from the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office an estimate of the budgetary effects
of PAYGO legislation.
(B) Estimates shall be prepared using baseline
estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget
Office, consistent with section 257 of the Balanced
1985.
(C) The Director shall not count timing shifts,
as that term is defined at section 3(8) of the Stat-
utory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, in estimates of
the budgetary effects of PAYGO Legislation.
(b) UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDG-
ET ACTION.—
(1) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall issue to the committees of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Senate reports on at least a
monthly basis detailing and tabulating the progress of
congressional action on bills and joint resolutions pro-
viding new budget authority or providing an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures for each
fiscal year covered by a concurrent resolution on the
budget. Such reports shall include but are not limited
to an up-to-date tabulation comparing the appropriate
aggregate and functional levels (including outlays) in-
cluded in the most recently adopted concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget with the levels provided in bills
and joint resolutions reported by committees or adopt-
ed by either House or by the Congress, and with the
levels provided by law for the fiscal year preceding the
[1055]
§ 1127 § 308
first fiscal year covered by the appropriate concurrent

resolution.
(2) The Committee on the Budget of each House
shall make available to Members of its House sum-
mary budget scorekeeping reports. Such reports—
(A) shall be made available on at least a month-
ly basis, but in any case frequently enough to pro-
vide Members of each House an accurate rep-
resentation of the current status of congressional
consideration of the budget;
(B) shall include, but are not limited to sum-
maries of tabulations provided under subsection
(b)(1); and
(C) shall be based on information provided
under subsection (b)(1) without substantive revi-
sion.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives shall submit such reports to the
Speaker.
(c) FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
ACT.—As soon as practicable after the beginning of each
fiscal year, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall issue a report projecting for the period of 5 fiscal
years beginning with such fiscal year—
(1) total new budget authority and total budget out-
lays for each fiscal year in such period;
(2) revenues to be received and the major sources
thereof, and the surplus or deficit, if any, for each fis-
cal year in such period;
(3) tax expenditures for each fiscal year in such pe-
riod; and
(4) entitlement authority for each fiscal year in such
period.
(d) Scorekeeping Guidelines.—Estimates under this sec-
tion shall be provided in accordance with the scorekeeping
guidelines determined under section 252(d)(5) of the Bal-
anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
II, P.L. 99–177) expanded the scope of subsection (a) to apply not only
to reports on legislation providing budget authority and tax expenditures
but also to reports on legislation providing new spending authority, new
credit authority, and changes in revenues. That law also added the require-
ment that the same information be available to Members before consider-
ation of conference reports or amendments in disagreement on such legisla-
tion, as well as subsections (b) and (c). The Budget Enforcement Act of
[1056]
§ 310 § 1127
1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) made conforming changes to subsections (a)
and (b) to reflect the advent of five-year budget resolutions. Certain tech-
nical and conforming changes were made to this section by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10110, P.L. 105–33). The Statutory Pay-
As-You-Go Act of 2010 (tit. I, P.L. 111–139) added subsections (a)(3) and
(d).
Section 308(a)(1) does not apply either to the consideration or to the
adoption of a special order reported from the Rules Committee ‘‘self-exe-
cuting’’ the adoption in the House of an amendment providing new budget
authority, because the amendment is not separately before the House dur-
ing consideration of the special order (but only when the bill of which
it becomes a part is before the House), and because it is the amendment
itself, and not the special order resolution, that provides the new budget
authority (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3543). A committee cost estimate identifying
certain spending authority as recurring annually and indefinitely was held
necessarily to address the five-year period required by this section (Nov.
20, 1993, p. 31354).
HOUSE APPROVAL OF REGULAR APPROPRIATION BILLS
SEC. 309. It shall not be in order in the House of Rep-

resentatives to consider any resolution providing for an
adjournment period of more than three calendar days dur-
ing the month of July until the House of Representatives
has approved annual appropriation bills providing new
budget authority under the jurisdiction of all the sub-
committees of the Committee on Appropriations for the
fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year. For pur-
poses of this section, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall peri-
odically advise the Speaker as to changes in jurisdiction
among its various subcommittees.
II, P.L. 99–177) added this section. See also section 310(f), infra.
RECONCILIATION
SEC. 310. (a) INCLUSION OF RECONCILIATION DIRECTIVES

IN CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS ON THE BUDGET.—A concur-
rent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the ex-
tent necessary to effectuate the provisions and require-
ments of such resolution, shall—
(1) specify the total amount by which—
(A) new budget authority for such fiscal year;
(B) budget authority initially provided for prior
fiscal years;
[1057]
§ 1127 § 310
(C) new entitlement authority which is to be-

come effective during such fiscal year; and
(D) credit authority for such fiscal year,
contained in laws, bills, and resolutions within the ju-
risdiction of a committee is to be changed and direct
that committee to determine and recommend changes
to accomplish a change of such total amount;
(2) specify the total amount by which revenues are
to be changed and direct that the committees having
jurisdiction to determine and recommend changes in
the revenue laws, bills, and resolutions to accomplish
a change of such total amount;
(3) specify the amounts by which the statutory limit
on the public debt is to be changed and direct the
committee having jurisdiction to recommend such
change; or
(4) specify and direct any combination of the mat-
ters described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) (includ-
ing a direction to achieve deficit reduction).
(b) LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE.—If a concurrent resolution
containing directives to one or more committees to deter-
mine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions
is agreed to in accordance with subsection (a), and—
(1) only one committee of the House or the Senate
is directed to determine and recommend changes, that
committee shall promptly make such determination
and recommendations and report to its House rec-
onciliation legislation containing such recommenda-
tions; or
(2) more than one committee of the House or the
Senate is directed to determine and recommend
changes, each such committee so directed shall
promptly make such determination and recommenda-
tions and submit such recommendations to the Com-
mittee on the Budget of its House, which upon receiv-
ing all such recommendations, shall report to its
House reconciliation legislation carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
For purposes of this subsection, a reconciliation resolution
is a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House
of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate, as the
case may be, to make specified changes in bills and resolu-
tions which have not been enrolled.
(c) COMPLIANCE WITH RECONCILIATION DIRECTIONS.—(1)
Any committee of the House of Representatives or the
Senate that is directed, pursuant to a concurrent resolu-
[1058]
§ 310 § 1127
tion on the budget, to determine and recommend changes

of the type described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of sub-
section (a) with respect to laws within its jurisdiction,
shall be deemed to have complied with such directions—
(A) if—
(i) the amount of the changes of the type de-
scribed in paragraph (1) of such subsection rec-
ommended by such committee do not exceed or
fall below the amount of the changes such com-
mittee was directed by such concurrent resolution
to recommend under that paragraph by more
than—
(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of
the amounts of the changes such committee
was directed to make under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of such subsection; or
(II) in the House of Representatives, 20
percent of the sum of the absolute value of the
changes the committee was directed to make
under paragraph (1) and the absolute value of
the changes the committee was directed to
make under paragraph (2); and
(ii) the amount of the changes of the type de-
scribed in paragraph (2) of such subsection rec-
ommended by such committee do not exceed or
fall below the amount of the changes such com-
mittee was directed by such concurrent resolution
to recommend under that paragraph by more
than—
(I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of
the amounts of the changes such committee
was directed to make under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of such subsection; or
(II) in the House of Representatives, 20
percent of the sum of the absolute value of the
changes the committee was directed to make
under paragraph (1) and the absolute value of
the changes the committee was directed to
make under paragraph (2); and
(B) if the total amount of the changes recommended
by such committee is not less than the total of the
amounts of the changes such committee was directed
to make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such sub-
section.
(2)(A) Upon the reporting to the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate of a recommendation that shall
[1059]
§ 1127 § 310
be deemed to have complied with such directions sole-

ly by virtue of this subsection, the chairman of that
committee may file with the Senate appropriately re-
vised allocations under section 302(a) and revised
functional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section.
(B) Upon the submission to the Senate of a con-
ference report recommending a reconciliation bill or
resolution in which a committee shall be deemed to
have complied with such directions solely by virtue
of this subsection, the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Sen-
ate appropriately revised allocations under section
302(a) and revised functional levels and aggregates
to carry out this subsection.
(C) Allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
revised pursuant to this paragraph shall be consid-
ered to be allocations, functional levels, and aggre-
gates contained in the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301.
(D) Upon the filing of revised allocations pursuant
to this paragraph, the reporting committee shall re-
port revised allocations pursuant to section 302(b)
to carry out this subsection.
(d) LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS TO RECONCILIATION
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.—
(1) It shall not be in order in the House of Rep-
resentatives to consider any amendment to a reconcili-
ation bill or reconciliation resolution if such amend-
ment would have the effect of increasing any specific
budget outlays above the level of such outlays pro-
vided in the bill or resolution (for the fiscal years cov-
ered by the reconciliation instructions set forth in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget), or would have the effect of reducing any spe-
cific Federal revenues below the level of such reve-
nues provided in the bill or resolution (for such fiscal
years), unless such amendment makes at least an
equivalent reduction in other specific budget outlays,
an equivalent increase in other specific Federal reve-
nues, or an equivalent combination thereof (for such
fiscal years), except that a motion to strike a provision
providing new budget authority or new entitlement
authority may be in order.
(2) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
any amendment to a reconciliation bill or reconcili-
[1060]
§ 310 § 1127
ation resolution if such amendment would have the ef-

fect of decreasing any specific budget outlay reduc-
tions below the level of such outlay reductions pro-
vided (for the fiscal years covered) in the reconcili-
ation instructions which relate to such bill or resolu-
tion set forth in a resolution providing for reconcili-
ation, or would have the effect of reducing Federal
revenue increases below the level of such revenue in-
creases provided (for such fiscal years) in such in-
structions relating to such bill or resolution, unless
such amendment makes a reduction in other specific
budget outlays, an increase in other specific Federal
revenues, or a combination thereof (for such fiscal
years) at least equivalent to any increase in outlays or
decrease in revenues provided by such amendment,
except that a motion to strike a provision shall always
be in order.
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if a dec-
laration of war by the Congress is in effect.
(4) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget
outlays and Federal revenues for a fiscal year shall be
determined on the basis of estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representa-
tives or of the Senate, as the case may be.
(5) The Committee on Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives may make in order amendments to
achieve changes specified by reconciliation directives
contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget if
a committee or committees of the House fail to submit
recommended changes to its Committee on the Budget
pursuant to its instruction.
(e) PROCEDURE IN THE SENATE.—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the provi-
sions of section 305 for the consideration in the Sen-
ate of concurrent resolutions on the budget and con-
ference reports thereon shall also apply to the consid-
eration in the Senate of reconciliation bills reported
under subsection (b) and conference reports thereon.
(2) Debate in the Senate on any reconciliation bill
reported under subsection (b), and all amendments
thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connec-
tion therewith, shall be limited to not more than 20
hours.
(f) COMPLETION OF RECONCILIATION PROCESS.—It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to con-
sider any resolution providing for an adjournment period
[1061]
§ 1127 § 311
of more than three calendar days during the month of

July until the House of Representatives has completed ac-
tion on the reconciliation legislation for the fiscal year be-
ginning on October 1 of the calendar year to which the ad-
journment resolution pertains, if reconciliation legislation
is required to be reported by the concurrent resolution on
the budget for such fiscal year.
(g) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall
not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation
resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on
the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint
resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budg-
et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that con-
tains recommendations with respect to the old-age, sur-
vivors, and disability insurance program established
under title II of the Social Security Act.
Until the enactment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Con-
trol Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177) this section required Congress to
complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget, normally the
second for that fiscal year, reaffirming or revising the most recently agreed
to concurrent resolution on the budget. It also permitted the second budget
resolution to implement the reconciliation process (instructions to commit-
tees to make changes in law necessary to achieve the changes in spending
or revenues contemplated by the budget resolution). The Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177) amended
subsection (a) to eliminate the requirement for subsequent budget resolu-
tions and specified the reconciliation process in greater detail by adding
paragraph (1)(D) to subsection (a) along with new subsections (b) through
(g). The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) amended
subsection (c), relating to adjustments to allocations in the Senate, and
deleted from subsection (f) a June 15 deadline for congressional action
on reconciliation. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10111, P.L.
105–33) amended section 310(c)(1)(A) to clarify that committees, in meeting
their reconciliation targets, may alternatively substitute revenue and
spending changes by up to 20 percent of the sum of the absolute value
of reconciled changes as long as the result does not increase the deficit
relative to the reconciliation instructions. Clause 7 of rule XXI places re-
strictions on reconciliation directives relative to direct spending.
BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION MUST BE WITHIN APPROPRIATE LEVELS
SEC. 311. (a) ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGREGATES.—

[1062]
§ 311 § 1127
(1) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—Except as

provided by subsection (c), after the Congress has
completed action on a concurrent resolution on the
budget for a fiscal year, it shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
providing new budget authority or reducing revenues,
if—
(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as
reported;
(B) the adoption and enactment of that amend-
ment; or
(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in
the form recommended in that conference report;
would cause the level of total new budget authority or
total outlays set forth in the applicable concurrent
resolution on the budget for the first fiscal year to be
exceeded, or would cause revenues to be less than the
level of total revenues set forth in that concurrent res-
olution for the first fiscal year or for the total of that
first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for which
allocations are provided under section 302(a), except
when a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect.
(2) IN THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution
on the budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in
the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that—
(A) would cause the level of total new budget
authority or total outlays set forth for the first fis-
cal year in the applicable resolution to be exceed-
ed; or
(B) would cause revenues to be less than the
level of total revenues set forth for that first fiscal
year or for the total of that first fiscal year and
the ensuing fiscal years in the applicable resolu-
tion for which allocations are provided under sec-
tion 302(a).
(3) ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY LEVELS IN
THE SENATE.—After a concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Sen-
ate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report that would cause a de-
crease in social security surpluses or an increase in
social security deficits relative to the levels set forth
in the applicable resolution for the first fiscal year or
for the total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal
[1063]
§ 1127 § 311
years for which allocations are provided under section

302(a).
(b) SOCIAL SECURITY LEVELS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection (a)(3),
social security surpluses equal the excess of social se-
curity revenues over social security outlays in a fiscal
year or years with such an excess and social security
deficits equal the excess of social security outlays over
social security revenues in a fiscal year or years with
such an excess.
(2) TAX TREATMENT.—For purposes of subsection
(a)(3), no provision of any legislation involving a
change in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall be treated as affecting the amount of social
security revenues or outlays unless that provision
changes the income tax treatment of social security
benefits.
(c) EXCEPTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—
Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply in the House of Rep-
resentatives to any bill, joint resolution, or amendment
that provides new budget authority for a fiscal year or to
any conference report on any such bill or resolution, if—
(1) the enactment of that bill or resolution as re-
ported;
(2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment;
or
(3) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report;
would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget
authority made pursuant to section 302(a) for that fiscal
year to be exceeded.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) amended
subsection (a) by: (1) standardizing its application to any bill, joint resolu-
tion, amendment, motion, or conference report; (2) adding the exception
for the case of a declaration of war; and (3) adding a new paragraph (2)
relating to Senate procedure. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–177) made important changes in this
section by codifying in subsection (b) the exception for the House that pre-
viously had appeared in the budget resolution, and by adding subsection
(c). The Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10112, P.L. 105–33) further
amended this section by: (1) eliminating references to ‘‘new entitlement
authority’’; (2) modifying Senate procedure; and (3) enforcing the revenue
level for the same multiyear period covered by the allocations under section
302(a).
[1064]
§ 311 § 1127

a point of order under section 311(a) operated with respect to a bill or
ation of an unreported measure (Mar. 21, 1995, p. 8491). The budget resolu-
tion deemed in place for fiscal year 2005 provided that, for purposes of
titles II and III of the Budget Act, the term ‘‘amendment’’ or ‘‘amendment
thereto’’ means an amendment offered or an amendment made in order
as original text or considered as adopted by special order of the House
(sec. 406, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, deemed in place
H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44). The House has adopted resolu-
tions to deem budget resolutions, or portions thereof, to be in place for
temporary enforcement (see annotations under section 301(b) of this Act).
To an appropriation bill already containing new budget outlays in excess
of the total level permitted by the second concurrent resolution on the
budget for that fiscal year, where the bill was considered under a waiver
of section 311(a) of the Budget Act, an amendment striking a proposed
rescission of existing budget authority that had the effect of causing the
net total of new budget authority in the bill to be increased was ruled
out in the House as in violation of section 311(a), as further exceeding
the total budget outlay ceiling in the second concurrent resolution on the
budget (May 12, 1981, pp. 9314, 15). An amendment that provides no new
budget authority or outlays but instead results in outlay savings is not
subject to a point of order under section 311(a) (June 30, 1987, p. 18308).
The Chair relied on estimates furnished by the Budget Committee to
hold that a motion to amend a Senate amendment providing new budget
authority for official mail costs to be available immediately violated section
311(a) because the appropriate level of new budget authority contained
in the budget resolution had already been exceeded and because the Appro-
priations Committee had exceeded its section 302(a) allocation (thereby
rendering the section 311(b) exception inapplicable) (Sept. 28, 1989, p.
22267).
In the Senate, the Chair sustained a point of order (later withdrawn)
against an amendment that had the effect of reducing revenues for fiscal
year 1977 below the total level of revenues contained in the final concurrent
resolution on the budget for that year, in violation of section 311(a) (Oct.
1, 1976, p. 34557). Similarly, a motion in the Senate to recommit a bill
with instructions to report it back with an amendment to the Internal
Revenue Code delaying the implementation of withholding on interest and
dividends was held (in response to a parliamentary inquiry) to be subject
to a point of order because the amendment would cause revenues to be
less than the appropriate level provided in the budget resolution for that
year (where S. Con. Res. 92 of the 97th Congress, the first budget resolution
for fiscal year 1985, provided that if a second budget resolution was not
adopted by October 1, 1982, then section 311 would be enforced based
on the aggregate figures contained in that resolution) (Apr. 20, 1983, pp.
[1065]
§ 1127 § 312
9131, 9151). A point of order was sustained (and upheld on appeal) in

the Senate against consideration of an amendment reducing the amount
of a rescission of appropriated funds where the effect was to increase the
net amount of total budget outlays contained in the bill to a level that,
when taken together with other spending actions already completed by
Congress, exceeded the total amount of budget outlays provided for the
current fiscal year in the third budget resolution, in violation of section
311 (June 27, 1980, pp. 17478, 17479). Also in the Senate, to a bill making
comprehensive changes in the Social Security Act being considered at a
time when the revenue floor established by the second concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget for that fiscal year had already been breached, an
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to delay interest and dividend
withholding during that fiscal year was held to constitute a further revenue
reduction and to violate section 311 (Vice President Bush, Mar. 22, 1983,
p. 6573). An amendment in the Senate to a Defense Department authoriza-
tion bill, providing a new entitlement program of educational assistance
to members and veterans of the armed forces, to become effective in a
future fiscal year or at any earlier time if so determined by the President,
was held to allow new entitlement spending for the current fiscal year
and to breach the applicable budget total, in violation of section 311 (July
13, 1983, p. 19018).
DETERMINATIONS AND POINTS OF ORDER
SEC. 312. (a) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS.—

For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels of new
budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitle-
ment authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be de-
termined on the basis of estimates made by the Com-
mittee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or
the Senate, as applicable.
(b) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING POINT OF ORDER IN THE
SENATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment, mo-
tion, or conference report on that bill or resolution)
that would exceed any of the discretionary spending
limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(2) EXCEPTIONS.—This subsection shall not apply if
a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if
a joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Bal-
anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 has been enacted.
(c) MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNT POINT OF ORDER IN THE
SENATE.—It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
[1066]
§ 312 § 1127
any concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year,

or to consider any amendment to that concurrent resolu-
tion, or to consider a conference report on that concurrent
resolution, if—
(1) the level of total outlays for the first fiscal year
set forth in that concurrent resolution or conference
report exceeds; or
(2) the adoption of that amendment would result in
a level of total outlays for that fiscal year that ex-
ceeds;
the recommended level of Federal revenues for that fiscal
year, by an amount that is greater than the maximum
deficit amount, if any, specified in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for that fiscal
year.
(d) TIMING OF POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—A
point of order under this Act may not be raised against a
bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
while an amendment or motion, the adoption of which
would remedy the violation of this Act, is pending before
the Senate.
(e) POINTS OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST AMEND-
MENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES.—Each provision of this Act
that establishes a point of order against an amendment
also establishes a point of order in the Senate against an
amendment between the Houses. If a point of order under
this Act is raised in the Senate against an amendment be-
tween the Houses and the point of order is sustained, the
effect shall be the same as if the Senate had disagreed to
the amendment.
(f) EFFECT OF A POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—In
the Senate, if a point of order under this Act against a bill
or resolution is sustained, the Presiding Officer shall then
recommit the bill or resolution to the committee of appro-
priate jurisdiction for further consideration.
Section 312 was added by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII,
P.L. 101–508). The section was amended by the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1997 (sec. 10113, P.L. 105–33) to: (1) clarify the responsibility of the
Budget Committee to provide estimates to the Chair upon which points
of order under the Congressional Budget Act are evaluated; and (2) modify
Senate procedure. The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2000 included a point of order against consideration in the House or Senate
of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, or any amend-
ment thereto or conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any
fiscal year (as determined by the Budget Committee) (sec. 201, H. Con.
Res. 68, 106th Cong., Apr. 13, 1999, p. 6337). Pursuant to clause 4 of rule
[1067]
§ 1127 § 313
XXIX, estimates may be provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.
EXTRANEOUS MATTER IN RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION
SEC. 313. (a) IN GENERAL.—When the Senate is consid-

ering a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation resolution
pursuant to section 310 (whether that bill or resolution
originated in the Senate or the House) or section 258C of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985, upon a point of order being made by any Senator
against material extraneous to the instructions to a com-
mittee which is contained in any title or provision of the
bill or resolution or offered as an amendment to the bill
or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the
Chair, any part of said title or provision that contains ma-
terial extraneous to the instructions to said Committee as
defined in subsection (b) shall be deemed stricken from
the bill and may not be offered as an amendment from the
floor.
(b) EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS.—(1)(A) Except as provided
in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation bill or rec-
onciliation resolution considered pursuant to section 310
shall be considered extraneous if such provision does not
produce a change in outlays or revenue, including changes
in outlays and revenues brought about by changes in the
terms and conditions under which outlays are made or
revenues are required to be collected (but a provision in
which outlay decreases or revenue increases exactly offset
outlay increases or revenue decreases shall not be consid-
ered extraneous by virtue of this subparagraph); (B) any
provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in
revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect
of provisions reported by the Committee reporting the title
containing the provision is that the Committee fails to
achieve its reconciliation instructions; (C) a provision that
is not in the jurisdiction of the Committee with jurisdic-
tion over said title or provision shall be considered extra-
neous; (D) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it
produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely
incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provi-
sion; (E) a provision shall be considered to be extraneous
if it increases, or would increase, net outlays, or if it de-
creases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year
after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or
reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases
are greater than outlay reductions or revenue increases
[1068]
§ 313 § 1127
resulting from other provisions in such title in such year;

and (F) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it vio-
lates section 310(g).
(2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered
extraneous under paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Budg-
et and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee which reported the provision certify that:
(A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attrib-
utable to a provision changing outlays or revenue and
both provisions together produce a net reduction in the
deficit; (B) the provision will result in a substantial reduc-
tion in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues dur-
ing fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the rec-
onciliation bill or reconciliation resolution; (C) a reduction
of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as
a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations
authorized by the provision or likely to be proposed, court
rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between eco-
nomic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining
to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings
or relationships currently projected by the Congressional
Budget Office for scorekeeping purposes; or (D) such provi-
sion will be likely to produce a significant reduction in
outlays or increase in revenues but, due to insufficient
data, such reduction or increase cannot be reliably esti-
mated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be con-
sidered extraneous under paragraph (1)(C) if (A) the provi-
sion is an integral part of a provision or title, which if in-
troduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such
committee, and the provision sets forth the procedure to
carry out or implement the substantive provisions that
were reported and which fall within the jurisdiction of
such committee; or (B) the provision states an exception
to, or a special application of, the general provision or title
of which it is a part and such general provision or title if
introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such
committee.
(c) EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS.—Upon the reporting or dis-
charge of a reconciliation bill or resolution pursuant to
section 310 in the Senate, and again upon the submission
of a conference report on such a reconciliation bill or reso-
lution, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall
submit for the record a list of material considered to be
extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and
[1069]
§ 1127 § 313
(b)(1)(E) of this section to the instructions of a committee

as provided in this section. The inclusion or exclusion of
a provision shall not constitute a determination of ex-
traneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
(d) CONFERENCE REPORTS.—When the Senate is consid-
ering a conference report on, or an amendment between
the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill or reconcili-
ation resolution pursuant to section 310, upon—
(1) a point of order being made by any Senator
against extraneous material meeting the definition of
subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or
(b)(1)(F), and
(2) such point of order being sustained,
such material contained in such conference report or
amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate
shall proceed, without intervening action or motion, to
consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amend-
ment, or concur in the House amendment with a further
amendment, as the case may be, which further amend-
ment shall consist of only that portion of the conference
report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so
stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debat-
able for two hours. In any case in which such point of
order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate
amendment derived from such conference report by oper-
ation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
(e) GENERAL POINT OF ORDER.—Notwithstanding any
other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a
Senator to raise a single point of order that several provi-
sions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or con-
ference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer
may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the pro-
visions against which the Senator raised the point of
order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of
order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of
an amendment, motion, or conference report) against
which the Senator raised the point of order, then only
those provisions (including provisions of an amendment,
motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding
Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed strick-
en pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer
rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to
waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of
[1070]
§ 314 § 1127
the provisions against which the point of order was raised.

Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with
the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Pre-
siding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator
may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a
point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions
on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
Section 313, popularly known as the ‘‘Byrd Rule,’’ was added by the Budg-
et Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508). The Budget Enforce-
ment Act of 1997 effected a technical correction to this section (sec. 10113,
P.L. 105–33). Changes in outlays or revenues are not rendered incidental
under this section simply by their insusceptibility to measurement (Aug.
6, 1993, p. 19764). A provision that achieved a net reduction in revenue
beyond the 10-year directive of the concurrent resolution on the budget
was stricken under this section (July 28, 1999, pp. 18172, 18178). An
amendment expressing the sense of the Senate presents nonbinding lan-
guage with no budgetary effect and is, therefore, in violation of this section
(Oct. 27, 1995, p. 30379).
ADJUSTMENTS
SEC. 314. (a) ADJUSTMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—After the reporting of a bill or
joint resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto,
or the submission of a conference report thereon, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives or the Senate shall make
the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the
amount of new budget authority in that measure (if
that measure meets the requirements set forth in sub-
section (b)) and the outlays flowing from that budget
authority.
(2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED.—The adjustments re-
ferred to in paragraph (1) are to be made to—
(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set
forth in the appropriate concurrent resolution on
the budget;
(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appro-
priate concurrent resolution on the budget pursu-
ant to section 302(a); and
(C) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the
appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
(b) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustment re-
ferred to in subsection (a) shall be—
(1) an amount provided and designated as an emer-
gency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or
[1071]
§ 1127 § 314
252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985;
(2) an amount provided for continuing disability re-
views subject to the limitations in section 251(b)(2)(C)
of that Act;
(3) for any fiscal year through 2002, an amount pro-
vided that is the dollar equivalent of the Special
Drawing Rights with respect to—
(A) an increase in the United States quota as
part of the International Monetary Fund Elev-
enth General Review of Quotas (United States
Quota); or
(B) any increase in the maximum amount avail-
able to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to
section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act,
as amended from time to time (New Arrange-
ments to Borrow);
(4) an amount provided not to exceed
$1,884,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998
through 2000 for arrearages for international organi-
zations, international peacekeeping, and multilateral
development banks;
(5) an amount provided for an earned income tax
credit compliance initiative but not to exceed—
(A) with respect to fiscal year 1998,
$138,000,000 in new budget authority;
(B) with respect to fiscal year 1999,
(C) with respect to fiscal year 2000,
(D) with respect to fiscal year 2001,
$145,000,000 in new budget authority; and
(E) with respect to fiscal year 2002,
$146,000,000 in new budget authority; or
(6) in the case of an amount for adoption incentive
payments (as defined in section 251(b)(2)(G) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) for fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or
2003 for the Department of Health and Human Serv-
ices, an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.
(c) APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENTS.—The adjustments
made pursuant to subsection (a) for legislation shall—
(1) apply while that legislation is under consider-
ation;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that legisla-
tion; and
[1072]
§ 314 § 1127
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as

soon as practicable.
(d) REPORTING REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS.—Following
any adjustment made under subsection (a), the Commit-
tees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives may report appropriately revised sub-
allocations under section 302(b) to carry out this section.
(e) DEFINITIONS FOR CDRS.—As used in subsection
(b)(2)—
(1) the term ‘‘continuing disability reviews’’ shall
have the same meaning as provided in section
251(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act of 1985; and
(2) the term ‘‘new budget authority’’ shall have the
same meaning as the term ‘‘additional new budget au-
thority’’ and the term ‘‘outlays’’ shall have the same
meaning as ‘‘additional outlays’’ in that section.
This section was added by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec.
10114, P.L. 105–33). Subsection (b)(6) was added by the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (sec. 201(b), P.L. 105–89). Emergency designations
for discretionary budget authority under section 314 are ineffectual be-
cause section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 has expired pursuant to § 275 of that Act. Budget resolutions
have provided that new budget authority, new entitlement authority, out-
lays, and receipts designated as an emergency in bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, or conference reports are not cognizable under specified sec-
tions of title III and IV of the Budget Act. The budget resolutions also
have required to be included in a committee report, joint statement of
managers, or the Congressional Record an explanation of how an emer-
gency item meets certain criteria (sec. 502, H. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong.;
sec. 402, S. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong., May 19, 2004, deemed in place
H. Res. 5, 109th Cong., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 402, H. Con. Res. 95,
109th Cong.; sec. 204, S. Con. Res. 21, 110th Cong.; sec. 301, S. Con. Res.
70, 110th Cong.). The budget resolution adopted by the House in 2006
provided a specific amount of emergency spending that, to be exceeded,
would require a vote of the Committee on the Budget to raise the relevant
302 allocation (sec. 501, H. Con. Res. 376, 109th Cong., May 18, 2006).
In the absence of a budget resolution, the House has enabled the designa-
tion of budget authority or revenue as an emergency (sec. 3(c), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l).
[1073]
§ 1127 § 401
EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES
SEC. 315. For purposes of a reported bill or joint resolu-

tion considered in the House of Representatives pursuant
to a special order of business, the term ‘‘as reported’’ in
this title or title IV shall be considered to refer to the text
made in order as an original bill or joint resolution for the
purpose of amendment or to the text on which the pre-
vious question is ordered directly to passage, as the case
may be.
This section was added by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec.
10115, P.L. 105–33). In the 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Con-
gresses, the House adopted an order to enforce a 303(a) point of order
against a reported bill or joint resolution considered under a special order
of business on the basis of text made in order as original text (sec. 2(a)(3),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 3(b)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24;
sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 10; sec. 3(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(a)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan.
5, 2007)). See clause 8 of rule XXI for similar treatment of unreported
bills under title III.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–508) established
a new title VI that placed temporary limits on discretionary spending and
provided mechanisms for enforcement that included those found in title
III of the Congressional Budget Act, which was extended by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (tit. XIV, P.L. 103–66). Title VI was
repealed by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10118, P.L. 105–
33). For the text of title VI, see the House Rules and Manual for the 104th
Congress (H. Doc. 103–342).
TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE

FISCAL PROCEDURES
PART A—GENERAL PROVISIONS
BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION NOT SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 401. (a) CONTROLS ON CERTAIN BUDGET-RELATED

LEGISLATION NOT SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.—It shall
not be in order in either the House of Representatives or
the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution (in the
House of Representatives only, as reported), amendment,
motion, or conference report that provides—
(1) new authority to enter into contracts under
which the United States is obligated to make outlays;
(2) new authority to incur indebtedness (other than
indebtedness incurred under chapter 31 of title 31 of
[1074]
§ 401 § 1127
the United States Code) for the repayment of which

the United States is liable; or
(3) new credit authority;
unless that bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report also provides that the new authority is
to be effective for any fiscal year only to the extent or in
the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
(b) LEGISLATION PROVIDING NEW ENTITLEMENT AUTHOR-
ITY.—
(1) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in ei-
ther the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any bill or joint resolution (in the House of
Representatives only, as reported), amendment, mo-
tion, or conference report that provides new entitle-
ment authority that is to become effective during the
current fiscal year.
(2) If any committee of the House of Representa-
tives or the Senate reports any bill or resolution
which provides new entitlement authority which is to
become effective during a fiscal year and the amount
of new budget authority which will be required for
such fiscal year if such bill or resolution is enacted as
so reported exceeds the appropriate allocation of new
budget authority reported under section 302(b) in con-
nection with the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for such fiscal year, such bill
or resolution shall then be referred to the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate or may then be re-
ferred to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House, as the case may be, with instructions to report
it, with the committee’s recommendations, within 15
calendar days (not counting any day on which that
House is not in session) beginning with the day fol-
lowing the day on which it is so referred. If the Com-
mittee on Appropriations of either House fails to re-
port a bill or resolution referred to it under this para-
graph within such 15-day period, the committee shall
automatically be discharged from further consider-
ation of such bill or resolution and such bill or resolu-
tion shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(3) The Committee on Appropriations of each House
shall have jurisdiction to report any bill or resolution
referred to it under paragraph (2) with an amendment
which limits the total amount of new spending au-
thority provided in such bill or resolution.
(c) EXCEPTIONS.—
[1075]
§ 1127 § 401
(1) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to new

authority described in those subsections if outlays
from that new authority [will]1 flow—
(A) from a trust fund established by the Social
Security Act (as in effect on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act); or
(B) from any other trust fund, 90 percent or
more of the receipts of which consist or will con-
sist of amounts (transferred from the general
fund of the Treasury) equivalent to amounts of
taxes (related to the purposes for which such out-
lays are or will be made) received in the Treasury
under specified provisions of the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1954.
(2) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to new
authority described in those subsections to the extent
that—
(A) the outlays resulting therefrom are made by
an organization which is (i) a mixed-ownership
Government corporation (as defined in section 201
of the Government Corporation Control Act), or
(ii) a wholly owned Government corporation (as
defined in section 101 of such Act) which is spe-
cifically exempted by law from compliance with
any or all of the provisions of that Act, as of the
date of enactment of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; or
(B) the outlays resulting therefrom consist ex-
clusively of the proceeds of gifts or bequests made
to the United States for a specific purpose.
II, P.L. 99–177) amended subsection (a) by substituting the phrase ‘‘spend-
ing authority’’ for ‘‘contract or borrowing authority’’ and extended the point
of order to conference reports, consistent with House precedent. The Bal-
anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (tit. II, P.L. 99–
177) left the subsection entitled ‘‘exceptions’’ intact except to clarify the
application of section 401 to Government corporations created after Decem-
ber 12, 1985. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101–
508) amended subsections (a) and (b)(1) to standardize their application
to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report. The
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33): (1) repealed
section 402, collapsing the point of order under that section into section
1 Paragraph (4)(A) of section 10116(a) of Public Law 105–33 amended
this provision as shown above. However, the word ‘‘will’’ probably should
have appeared in the matter proposed to be stricken by that public law.
[1076]
§ 401 § 1127
401; (2) repealed the definition of ‘‘new spending authority,’’ while shifting
the definition of new entitlement authority to section 3; and (3) converted
the mandatory referral of measures providing new entitlement authority
to the Appropriations Committee to discretionary referral of such meas-
ures.
Language in a bill authorizing receipts from loans under certain legisla-
tion to be made available for designated purposes was held not to be ‘‘new
spending authority’’ that would prohibit the consideration of the bill under
section 401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, where it was shown from
the term ‘‘authorized’’ and from the committee report on the bill that the
amounts of repaid loans must again be appropriated in appropriation acts
before the funds could be expended (Speaker Albert, Sept. 10, 1975, p.
28270). A point of order under section 401(a) operates with respect to a
bill or joint resolution in reported state and thus does not lie against consid-
eration of an unreported measure (Mar. 21, 1995, p. 8491). Section 401(a)
prohibits the consideration of a bill or amendment, including a conference
report, containing new spending authority to incur indebtedness for the
repayment of which the United States is primarily liable, the budget au-
thority for which is not provided in advance by appropriation acts. Thus
a conference report authorizing a Secretary to borrow funds by issuing
Government notes as a public debt transaction to make payments in con-
nection with defaults on loans by medical students, not subject to amounts
specified in advance by appropriation acts, was ruled out of order as vio-
lating section 401(a) (Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 32655–704).
A point of order under section 401(b) operates with respect to a bill or
joint resolution in reported state and thus does not lie against consideration
of an unreported measure (Mar. 21, 1995, p. 8491). A conference report
(filed in 1976 to accompany a bill originally reported in the House in cal-
endar year 1975) requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to pay a cost of
transporting agricultural commodities to major disaster areas upon the
date of enactment was held to constitute new spending ‘‘entitlement’’ au-
thority that could become effective before the fiscal year beginning during
the calendar year in which the bill had been reported from conference,
in violation of section 401(b)(1), and the conference report was ruled out
of order (Speaker Albert, Sept. 23, 1976, pp. 32099, 32100). A Senate
amendment providing new spending ‘‘entitlement’’ authority for adjust-
ment assistance under the Trade Act of 1974, by requiring the Secretary
of Labor to certify a new group of workers as eligible beginning on the
day before to the start of the ensuing fiscal year, was conceded to violate
section 401(b)(1), and a motion to concur was ruled out on that point of
order (June 26, 1986, p. 15729). Where an amendment contained new enti-
tlement authority in the form of retirement benefits to certain Federal
employees, the Chair contemplated immediate enactment in his determina-
tion that the new entitlement authority became effective before the fiscal
year beginning during the calendar year in which the pending bill was
reported (May 9, 1995, p. 12178).
[1077]
§ 1127 § 401
Where a committee had not yet filed with the House a report subdividing
among its subcommittees or by programs new entitlement authority allo-
cated to that committee in the joint statement accompanying a conference
report on a concurrent resolution on the budget, formerly required under
section 302(a), the Speaker under section 401(b) referred to the Appropria-
tions Committee for the 15-day period a bill reported by that committee
that exceeded the total entitlement authority allocated to that committee
in the joint statement, and also referred a subsequent bill reported by
that committee that contained new entitlement authority (Speaker Albert,
May 17, 1976, p. 14093; Aug. 25, 1976, p. 27775). During the efficacy of
title VI, section 401(b)(2) had no practical effect because that section re-
mained linked to section 302 rather than the overriding section 602. Before
consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole, the Speaker may dis-
charge from the Union Calendar and refer to the Appropriations Com-
mittee for 15 days, pursuant to section 401(b), a bill that has been reported
providing new entitlement authority in excess of the total amount allocated
to the reporting committee (Speaker O’Neill, Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28153; Sept.
8, 1978, p. 28543) even if the bill was reported before final adoption of
the first budget resolution (Speaker O’Neill, July 19, 1978, pp. 21786,
21787; May 21, 1981, p. 10622). A bill reported from the Committee on
Agriculture amending the Food and Agriculture Act to increase certain
commodity target prices of 1979 crops, thereby providing new entitlement
authority for fiscal year 1980 in excess of the amount allocated to that
committee under the first budget resolution, and a bill reported from the
Committee on Ways and Means increasing eligibility and payments for
child welfare and social services under the Social Security Act, providing
new entitlement authority in excess of the net amount of such authority
allocated to that committee under the first budget resolution, were dis-
charged from the Union Calendar by the Speaker and referred to the Appro-
priations Committee pursuant to section 401(b) (Speaker O’Neill, June 5,
1979, p. 13385; June 6, 1979, p. 13665). The Speaker may exercise the
referral authority under section 401(b), whether or not the committee has
filed its report under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, where the budget
authority for the entitlement bill has been assumed in the budget resolu-
tion and would be included in the committee’s 302(b) report, but where
the budget authority for such bill exceeds the net amount of such authority
allocated to the reporting committee, because the budget resolution as-
sumes the reporting of other legislation, decreasing other programs for
the year in question, that has yet to be reported (Speaker O’Neill, June
6, 1979, p. 13665).
Although the former definition of new spending authority in section
401(c)(2) did not include the authority to insure or guarantee the repay-
ment of indebtedness incurred by another person or government (as where
the authority to incur contractual obligations to insure or guarantee an-
other person’s debt is a contingent liability of the United States), the au-
thority to make payments in connection with defaults that have already
[1078]
§ 402 § 1127
occurred was conceded to constitute a primary liability of the United States

to incur indebtedness and to require budget authority in advance in appro-
priation acts (Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 32655–704). A provision that requires
payments to individuals meeting certain qualifications, but that also con-
tains an authorization for appropriations to make such payments and a
provision that if sums appropriated pursuant thereto are insufficient to
make payments, then payments be ratably reduced to the amounts of ap-
propriations actually made, does not constitute new entitlement authority
(Sept. 13, 1983, p. 23884). An amendment establishing a new executive
position at compensation level II but subjecting its salary to the appropria-
tion process was held not to provide new entitlement authority (Mar. 26,
1992, p. 7203). The 106th Congress adopted a temporary rule excluding
Federal compensation from the definition of entitlement authority (sec.
2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), which expired upon the adoption
of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2000. The 107th, 108th, 111th, and
112th Congresses adopted that rule for the entire Congress (sec. 3(b)(3),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; sec. 3(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 10;
sec. 3(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. l; (sec. 3(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. l). The 109th and 110th Congresses adopted that rule for
the entire Congress but limited its applicability to section 401 (sec. 3(a)(3),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 511(a)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p.
19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
The former definition of new entitlement authority did not include rev-
enue-sharing spending authority in the form of entitlements, because the
exception from the definition of new spending authority for revenue-shar-
ing programs did not apply to new entitlement authority for future fiscal
years (Speaker Albert, Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074–100).
ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SEC. 402. The Director of the Congressional Budget Of-

fice shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each bill
or resolution of a public character reported by any com-
mittee of the House of Representatives or the Senate (ex-
cept the Committee on Appropriations of each House), and
submit to such committee—
(1) an estimate of the costs which would be incurred
in carrying out such bill or resolution in the fiscal
year in which it is to become effective and in each of
the 4 fiscal years following such fiscal year, together
with the basis for each such estimate;
(2) a comparison of the estimates of costs described
in paragraph (1), with any available estimates of costs
made by such committee or by any Federal agency;
and
[1079]
§ 1127 § 405
(3) a description of each method for establishing a

Federal financial commitment contained in such bill
or resolution.
The estimates, comparison, and description so submitted
shall be included in the report accompanying such bill or
resolution if timely submitted to such committee before
such report is filed.
* * * * *
II, P.L. 99–177) amended this section by adding paragraph (4) to subsection
(a), along with a conforming change to the second sentence of that sub-
section. Public Law 97–108 previously amended section 403 by adding sub-
sections (a)(2), (b), and (c). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
deleted from this section a requirement that the Director estimate costs
incurred by State and local governments, in favor of a more particularized
requirement in section 424, infra (sec. 104, P.L. 104–4; 109 Stat. 62). The
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33) redesignated
this section, formerly section 403, as section 402. A committee cost estimate
identifying certain spending authority as recurring annually and indefi-
nitely was held necessarily to address the five-year period required by
section 308 (Nov. 20, 1993, p. 31354).
STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF FORMS OF FEDERAL

FINANCIAL COMMITMENT THAT ARE NOT REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY CONGRESS
SEC. 404. The General Accounting Office shall study

those provisions of law which provide mandatory spending
and report to the Congress its recommendations for the
appropriate form of financing for activities or programs fi-
nanced by such provisions not later than eighteen months
after the effective date of this section. Such report shall be
revised from time to time.
This section, formerly section 405, was redesignated by the Budget En-
forcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33). The General Accounting
Office is now designated the Government Accountability Office (31 U.S.C.
702 note).
OFF-BUDGET AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES
SEC. 405. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, budget authority, credit authority, and estimates of
outlays and receipts for activities of the Federal budget
which are off-budget immediately prior to the date of en-
actment of this section, not including activities of the Fed-
eral Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Dis-
ability Insurance Trust Funds, shall be included in a
[1080]
§ 421 § 1127
budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,

United States Code, and in a concurrent resolution on the
budget reported pursuant to section 301 or section 304 of
this Act and shall be considered, for purposes of this Act,
budget authority, outlays, and spending authority in ac-
cordance with definitions set forth in this Act.
(b) All receipts and disbursements of the Federal Fi-
nancing Bank with respect to any obligations which are
issued, sold, or guaranteed by a Federal agency shall be
treated as a means of financing such agency for purposes
of section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and for
purposes of this Act.
This section, formerly section 406, was redesignated by the Budget En-
forcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33).
MEMBER USER GROUP
SEC. 406. The Speaker of the House of Representatives,

after consulting with the Minority Leader of the House,
may appoint a Member User Group for the purpose of re-
viewing budgetary scorekeeping rules and practices of the
House and advising the Speaker from time to time on the
effect and impact of such rules and practices.
II, P.L. 99–177) added sections 405, 406, and 407 as new sections at the
end of title IV. This section, formerly section 407, was redesignated by
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105–33).
* * * * *
PART B—FEDERAL MANDATES
SEC. 421. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this part:
(1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the same
meaning as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United
States Code, but does not include independent regu-
latory agencies.
(2) AMOUNT.—The term ‘‘amount’’, with respect to
an authorization of appropriations for Federal finan-
cial assistance, means the amount of budget authority
for any Federal grant assistance program or any Fed-
eral program providing loan guarantees or direct
loans.
(3) DIRECT COSTS.—The term ‘‘direct costs’’—
[1081]
§ 1127 § 421
(A)(i) in the case of a Federal intergovern-

mental mandate, means the aggregate estimated
amounts that all State, local, and tribal govern-
ments would be required to spend or would be
prohibited from raising in revenues in order to
comply with the Federal intergovernmental man-
date; or
(ii) in the case of a provision referred to in
paragraph (5)(A)(ii), means the amount of Federal
financial assistance eliminated or reduced;
(B) in the case of a Federal private sector man-
date, means the aggregate estimated amounts
that the private sector will be required to spend
in order to comply with the Federal private sector
mandate;
(C) shall be determined on the assumption
that—
(i) State, local, and tribal governments, and
the private sector will take all reasonable steps
necessary to mitigate the costs resulting from
the Federal mandate, and will comply with ap-
plicable standards of practice and conduct es-
tablished by recognized professional or trade as-
sociations; and
(ii) reasonable steps to mitigate the costs
shall not include increases in State, local, or
tribal taxes or fees; and
(D) shall not include—
(i) estimated amounts that the State, local,
and tribal governments (in the case of a Federal
intergovernmental mandate) or the private sec-
tor (in the case of a Federal private sector man-
date) would spend—
(I) to comply with or carry out all appli-
cable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws
and regulations in effect at the time of the
adoption of the Federal mandate for the same
activity as is affected by that Federal man-
date; or
(II) to comply with or carry out State,
local, and tribal governmental programs, or
private-sector business or other activities in
effect at the time of the adoption of the Fed-
eral mandate for the same activity as is af-
fected by that mandate; or
[1082]
§ 421 § 1127
(ii) expenditures to the extent that such ex-

penditures will be offset by any direct savings
to the State, local, and tribal governments, or
by the private sector, as a result of—
(I) compliance with the Federal mandate;
or
(II) other changes in Federal law or regu-
lation that are enacted or adopted in the
same bill or joint resolution or proposed or
final Federal regulation and that govern the
same activity as is affected by the Federal
mandate.
(4) DIRECT SAVINGS.—The term ‘‘direct savings’’,
when used with respect to the result of compliance
with the Federal mandate—
(A) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, means the aggregate estimated reduc-
tion in costs to any State, local, or tribal govern-
ment as a result of compliance with the Federal
intergovernmental mandate; and
(B) in the case of a Federal private sector man-
date, means the aggregate estimated reduction in
costs to the private sector as a result of compli-
ance with the Federal private sector mandate.
(5) FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATE.—The
term ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ means—
(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or reg-
ulation that—
(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or tribal governments, except—
(I) a condition of Federal assistance; or
(II) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program, except as pro-
vided in subparagraph (B); or
(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount
of authorization of appropriations for—
(I) Federal financial assistance that
would be provided to State, local, or tribal
governments for the purpose of complying
with any such previously imposed duty unless
such duty is reduced or eliminated by a cor-
responding amount; or
(II) the control of borders by the Federal
Government; or reimbursement to State,
local, or tribal governments for the net cost
associated with illegal, deportable, and ex-
[1083]
§ 1127 § 421
cludable aliens, including court-mandated ex-

penses related to emergency health care, edu-
cation or criminal justice; when such a reduc-
tion or elimination would result in increased
net costs to State, local, or tribal govern-
ments in providing education or emergency
health care to, or incarceration of, illegal
aliens; except that this subclause shall not be
in effect with respect to a State, local, or trib-
al government, to the extent that such gov-
ernment has not fully cooperated in the ef-
forts of the Federal Government to locate, ap-
prehend, and deport illegal aliens; [or]
(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or reg-
ulation that relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and tribal gov-
ernments under entitlement authority, if the pro-
vision—
(i)(I) would increase the stringency of con-
ditions of assistance to State, local, or tribal
governments under the program; or
(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise de-
crease, the Federal Government’s responsibility
to provide funding to State, local, or tribal gov-
ernments under the program; and
(ii) the State, local, or tribal governments
that participate in the Federal program lack
authority under that program to amend their fi-
nancial or programmatic responsibilities to con-
tinue providing required services that are af-
fected by the legislation, statute, or regulation.
(6) FEDERAL MANDATE.—The term ‘‘Federal man-
date’’ means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or
a Federal private sector mandate, as defined in para-
graphs (5) and (7).
(7) FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATE.—The term
‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ means any provision
in legislation, statute, or regulation that—
(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector except—
(i) a condition of Federal assistance; or
(ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program; or
(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of au-
thorization of appropriations for Federal financial
[1084]
§ 422 § 1127
assistance that will be provided to the private sec-

tor for the purposes of ensuring compliance with
such duty.

Jefferson's Manual and Rules of The (Us) House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jefferson's Manual and Rules of The (Us) House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jefferson's Manual and Rules of The (Us) House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - House Document No.

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

mittee on Standards of Official Conduct as the Committee

(19) repeal of the exemption for the Committee on Rules

(2) Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Rep-

in the Office of Legislative Counsel — are granted office

They have our highest commendations and deepest thanks

SECTION I.—Importance of adhering to rules ........................ 127

RULES OF THE HOUSE

RULE I.—The Speaker ........................................................ 333

PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED

Congressional adjournment ................................................................ 1003

JOINT AND SELECT COMMITTEES

Economic Committee, Joint ................................................................ 1005

HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES

House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards ............... 1009

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET LAWS

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 ..................................................... 1021

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES ENACTED IN LAW

Measures privileged for consideration in House .............................. 1107

Index .................................................................................................... 1277

First. Prayer by Chaplain.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

Second and fourth Mondays:

First and third Tuesdays:

Call of Committees under Calendar Wednesday. Rule XV, clause 7.

tablish Justice, insure domestic

SECTION 2. 1 The House of Rep-

resentatives shall be composed of

* * * and the Electors in each

§ 10. Citizenship as a * * * and been seven Years a Cit-

§ 11. Inhabitancy as a * * * and who shall not, when

bia for years as a newspaper correspondent and maintenance there of

Both Houses of Congress have decided, when a Member-elect is found

* * * The actual Enumeration shall be made

six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South

to resign a seat in the House to be effective on a date following the antici-

The term ‘‘vacancy’’ as occurring in this paragraph of the Constitution

* * * and [the House of Representatives] shall

prompted by a communication from an independent counsel, see § 176,

SECTION 3. 1 [The Senate of the United States

other Officers, and also a President

without the Concurrence of two thirds of the

SECTION 4. 1 The Times, Places and Manner of

any time by Law make or alter such Regula-

SECTION 5. 1 Each House shall be the Judge of

* * * and a Majority of each [House] shall

ness; but a smaller Number may

have already adopted a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: United States v.

* * * [Each House may] punish its Members

burse a portion of the costs of the investigation by the Committee on Stand-

employee to destroy evidence and to provide false testimony to a Federal

further discussion of the composition and approval of the Journal, see

* * * and the Yeas and Nays of the Members

Congress enables an adjournment for more than three days by a concur-

such recall authority permitted recall by designees of the Speaker and