[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 4. Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9501-9508]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 4. Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole

    Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole 
involves a procedure under which propositions are considered for debate 
and amendment under the five-minute rule, normally without general 
debate but with all the motions utilized in the House available as 
provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI. Under this procedure, the House does 
not resolve into the Committee nor does a Chairman preside, the Speaker 
instead continuing to preside.
    The normal method for initiating consideration in the House as in 
the Committee of the Whole is by unanimous consent. A motion that a 
Union Calendar bill be considered under that procedure is not in 
order.(10) An order or request for this procedure means that 
the bill or resolution will be considered as having been read for 
amendment and will be open for amendment and debate under the five-
minute rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 4.11, infra. Generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
11. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 424 (1995). For 
        the procedure under the five-minute rule in the House as in the 
        Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 70, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill is or would be on the Union Calendar, and it is called 
up by unanimous consent for ``immediate consideration'' (as opposed to 
``immediate consideration in the House''), the unanimous-consent 
request carries by implication the requirement that if the request is 
agreed to the bill will be considered in the House as in the Committee 
of the Whole.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 4.5-4.8, 4.12, infra. Alternatively, a unanimous-
        consent request for the consideration of a Union Calendar bill 
        may specify that the bill be considered ``under the general 
        rules of the House,'' that is, in the Committee of the Whole 
        House on the State of the Union (see Sec. Sec. 3.4, 3.5, 
        supra), or that it be considered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, a resolution from the Committee on Rules has provided 
for the consideration of a proposition in the House as in Committee of 
the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rules Providing for Consideration

Sec. 4.1 Special rules may provide for the consideration of designated 
    bills in the House as in Committee of the Whole; thus, a resolution 
    was re

[[Page 9502]]

    ported from the Committee on Rules, providing for consideration in 
    the House as in Committee of the Whole of 
    a nonprivileged resolution also reported from that committee 
    establishing a Select Committee on Assassinations.

    On Feb. 2, 1977,(14) the follow-ing proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 3359, 3360, 3369, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 230

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 222), 
        creating a Select Committee on Assassinations, in the House as 
        in the Committee of the Whole.

        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, this is a slightly unusual rule, but 
    it has been used a number of times before. It in effect provides, 
    when it is adopted . . . that the House will go into the House as 
    in the Committee of the Whole to consider the matter contained in 
    House Resolution 222, which would reconstitute the Select Committee 
    on Assassinations for a limited period. . . .
        The reason we chose this procedure, rather than providing for 
    an open rule or dealing with a closed rule, is to try to be fair to 
    Members who want to offer amendments in the House as in the 
    Committee of the Whole. We proceed without general debate under the 
    5-minute rule. The Speaker continues to preside. He does the 
    recognizing. The Members are recognized on either side for 5 
    minutes, pro forma, on all questions of amendments. Pro forma 
    amendments are in order.
        But this is the important difference: the manager of House 
    Resolution 222--and I will be that manager--has control of the 
    previous question. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 222 was not privileged 
since it included provisions funding the select committee, matters not 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 4.2 Special rules adopted by the House providing for the 
    consideration of designated bills in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole have also provided for general debate.

    On June 5, 1936,(16) the House agreed to the following 
resolution (H. Res. 528), authorizing a list of enumerated bills to be 
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 8746, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order for

[[Page 9503]]

    the Committee on the Judiciary to call up for consideration, 
    without the intervention of any point of order, the following 
    bills:
        S. 3389. An act to provide for the appointment of two 
    additional judges for the southern district of New York.
        S. 2075. An act to provide for the appointment of additional 
    district judges for the eastern and western districts of Missouri.
        S. 2137. An act to provide for the appointment of one 
    additional district judge for the eastern, northern, and western 
    districts of Oklahoma.
        S. 2456. An act to provide for the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the northern and southern districts of West 
    Virginia.
        H.R. 11072. A bill authorizing the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
        H.R. 3043. A bill to provide for the appointment of an 
    additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia.
        Each such bill when called up shall be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole. After general debate on each such 
    bill, which shall continue not to exceed 20 minutes, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule.

    On Jan. 6, 1937,(17) the House adopted House Resolution 
44, providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole of a joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
    shall consider the joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 3; 
    that there shall be not to exceed 1 hour of general debate to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, whereupon the joint 
    resolution shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

Unanimous-consent Procedure --Measures on Union Calendar

Sec. 4.3 The House considered 
    a resolution--continuing certain appropriations--in the House as in 
    the Committee 
    of the Whole pursuant to 
    a unanimous-consent request to that effect agreed to on a prior 
    day.

    On Sept. 28, 1966,(18) the House considered House Joint 
Resolution 1308, continuing appropriations through October 1966, in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole. Consideration of the joint 
resolution had been made in order by a unanimous-consent agreement on 
Sept. 22, 1966.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 24080, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id. at pp. 23691, 23692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 Where consideration of a bill ``under the general rules of the 
    House'' has been

[[Page 9504]]

    agreed to, the bill may be called up pursuant to the agreement and 
    then by unanimous consent be considered in the House as in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 1, 1969,(20) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, made a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 8136, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of 
    March 27, 1969, I call up for immediate consideration the bill 
    (H.R. 9328) [special pay for naval officers qualified for nuclear 
    submarine duty] and ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 27, Mr. Rivers had asked unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider ``under the general rules of the House'' (in this 
case, in Committee of the Whole since it was a Union Calendar bill) on 
Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week the bill H.R. 
9328.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 7895.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.5 Where unanimous consent is granted for the consideration of a 
    bill on the Union Calendar, the bill is frequently considered in 
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    See, for example, the proceedings of Apr. 6, 1966, discussed in 
Sec. 4.7, infra; and the proceedings of June 28, 1966, discussed in 
Sec. 4.10, infra.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 79 Cong. Rec. 14331, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 23, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.6 Where a joint resolution requiring consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole is called up by unanimous consent, it may be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 26, 1968,(3) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 
1461, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1969. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that if the request was agreed 
to, the joint resolution could be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 28374, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection to Mr. Mahon's request, and he then asked 
unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered in the House 
as in the Committee 
of the Whole. The request was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in Sec. 4.7, infra, the second 
re

[[Page 9505]]

quest was not necessary, since by implication a unanimous-consent 
request for immediate consideration of a Union Calendar bill means 
consideration in the House as in Committee, rather than ``in the 
House'' (under the hour rule) or ``under general rules of the House'' 
(in Committee of the Whole).

Sec. 4.7 Where a Member asks ``unanimous consent for the immediate 
    consideration'' of a bill pending on the Union Calendar, the 
    request is construed to carry with it the additional stipulation 
    that if consent is granted, the bill will be considered in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(4) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill 
H.R. 14224, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1966, then pending on 
the Union Calendar. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary 
    inquiry only that the Members might understand what the 
    opportunities might be for discussion. I make the parliamentary 
    inquiry to the effect that if the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas is agreed to that the bill can be considered under 
    unanimous-consent request--do I state it correctly that there will 
    be the opportunity for striking out the last word and having an 
    opportunity to speak?
        The Speaker: The bill is to be considered in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole, and motions to strike out the last word 
    will be in order.
        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Will the gentleman make the request 
    that the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request will automatically carry that privilege.

Sec. 4.8 Where the House, during the call of the Consent 
    Calendar, grants unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
    of a bill on the Union Calendar or of an identical Senate bill, the 
    bill is considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 3, 1970,(5) during the call of the Consent 
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of

[[Page 9506]]

Massachusetts, indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries that a 
bill on the Union Calendar, or an identical Senate bill, would be 
considered in the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole should unanimous consent be granted for 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 26981, 26982, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.9 The House agreed by unanimous consent to consider in the House 
    as in 
    the Committee of the Whole 
    a privileged rescission bill when called up by the Committee on 
    Appropriations.

    On Feb. 17, 1977,(6) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made 
the following unanimous-consent request in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 4576, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Under Public Law 93-344, section 1017(c)(2), debate on a 
        rescission bill in Committee of the Whole cannot exceed two 
        hours, and the purpose of the above request was to permit 
        immediate consideration under the five-minute rule without 
        general debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
    bill H.R. 3347 is called up, that it be considered in the House as 
    in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.10 Where a resolution has been adopted making the consideration 
    of a bill in order, and the bill is then called up and considered 
    by unanimous consent, rather than pursuant to the rule, in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole, the Journal indicates the 
    discharge of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union.

    On June 28, 1966,(8) the House adopted a special rule 
(H. Res. 895) for the consideration in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union of a calendared bill (H.R. 5256) changing the 
method of computing the retirement pay of members of the armed forces. 
Then Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that 
the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, 
and there was no objection. The Journal entry on that day stated: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 14544-45, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H. Jour. p. 650, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On motion by Mr. Hebert, by unanimous consent, the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union was discharged from 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5256) to amend title 10, 
    United States Code, to change

[[Page 9507]]

    the method of computing retired pay of certain enlisted members of 
    the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

        When said bill was considered and read twice.
        After debate,
        The following amendment, recommended by the Committee on Armed 
    Services, was agreed to: . . .
        The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, was read a third time by title, and passed.

--Motion Not in Order

Sec. 4.11 A motion that a Union Calendar bill be considered in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole is not in order (unanimous 
    consent being required).

    On July 12, 1939,(10) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
called up H.R. 985, on the Union Calendar, and asked unanimous consent 
that it be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 
Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, objected to the consideration of the bill 
and Mr. May then attempted to make a motion for consideration in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled:

        The Chair is of the opinion that could not be permitted under 
    the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a unanimous-
    consent request, but not a motion.

    Mr. Hobbs objected to Mr. May's request, and the Speaker directed 
the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Procedure in the House as in the Committee of the Whole is by 
        unanimous consent only, as the order of business gives no place 
        for a motion that business be considered in that manner. 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923 [cited at Jefferson's Manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 424 (1995)]. Provision is made in the 
        rules for the consideration of Private Calendar bills under the 
        five-minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 
        See Rule XXIV clause 
        6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Bills on Union Calendar

Sec. 4.12 District of Columbia bills called up on District Monday, if 
    on the Union Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in 
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 11, 1964,(12) Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, 
called up

[[Page 9508]]

H.R. 9774, terminating the District of Columbia Plaza Renewal Project, 
on District Monday. The bill had been on the Union Calendar, and Mr. 
Dowdy requested unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole. The House agreed to the 
request.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 18950, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Calendar Bills

Sec. 4.13 Omnibus private bills are considered under the five-minute 
    rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and the Chair 
    does not recognize for extensions of time.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(14) the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole was considering for amendment omnibus private bills under the 
five-minute rule. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, refused to 
recognize a Member for an extension of time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 3890, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
        Mr. [Theodore] Christianson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        The Speaker: On the previous section of this bill the Chair put 
    a unanimous-consent request for an extension of time. The attention 
    of the Chair has since been called to a ruling by the author of the 
    present Private Calendar rule, who was presiding at the last 
    session on this calendar. This rule was proposed for the purpose of 
    expediting business. Upon reflection, the Chair does not think he 
    should recognize Members for the purpose of requesting an extension 
    of time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 70, infra, for additional ruling on the five-minute rule 
        as applied to private bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------