[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[A. In General]
[Â§ 2. Motions and Requests Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3260-3269]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 2. Motions and Requests Generally

    Particular motions which may be entertained in the Committee of the 
Whole include certain motions relating to the enacting 
clause,(2) motions to amend, and motions to 
rise;(3) the Committee of the Whole may not entertain 
motions involving functions properly performed by the House such as 
motions to (1) adjourn,(4) (2) lay on the 
table,(5) (3) lay on the table
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 10-14, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 22-25, infra.
 4. Sec. 2.4, infra.
 5. Sec. 2.7, infra. However, after general debate on a bill has been 
        closed, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and 
        report with a recommendation that the bill be laid on the table 
        may be offered. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3261]]

an appeal of the Chair's ruling,(6) (4) limit general 
debate,(7) (5) close general debate,(8) (6) order 
the previous question,(9) (7) recess without permission of 
the House,(10) (8) recommit,(11) (9) 
reconsider,(12) (10) order a call of the 
House,(13) (11) effect a conference or instruct 
conferees,(14) or (12) expunge remarks from the 
Record.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sec. 2.8, infra.
 7. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2554. However, debate under the five-
        minute rule may be limited (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5224), and 
        general debate may be limited by unanimous consent in the 
        absence of an order by the House (5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5232; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2553, 2554). The 
        terms ``limit'' and ``close'' with reference to debate are 
        frequently used interchangeably.
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5217.
 9. Sec. 2.6, infra.
10. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 586 (1979); 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6669-6671; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 3357, 3362.
11. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4721 and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2326. 
        However, the Committee of the Whole may move to rise and report 
        with the recommendation that a bill be recommitted, unless that 
        motion is precluded by the terms of a special rule (see 
        Sec. 23.12, infra); such motion is only in order at the 
        completion of reading the bill for amendment (4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762), and takes precedence over a 
        motion to rise and report with the recommendation that a bill 
        pass (8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329).
12. Sec. 2.5, infra.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2369.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2320. The subject of conferences is 
        discussed more fully in Ch. 33, infra.
15. Sec. 3.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement That Motions Be Written

Sec. 2.1 All motions must be in writing, if the demand is made, even a 
    motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise.

    On June 13, 1947,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3342, 
the cultural relations program of the State Department, Chairman Thomas 
A. Jenkins, of Ohio, sustained a point of order against a motion to 
rise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 6998, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See 96 Cong. Rec. 1693, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1950, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion has not been submitted in writing.
        Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, a preferential motion of 
    this

[[Page 3262]]

    character does not have to be submitted in writing.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Motion to Rise and Recommend

Sec. 2.2 After defeat of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that it 
    pass, a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1941,(17) during consideration of H.R. 3490, 
fixing the amount of annual payment by the United States toward 
defraying expenses of the District of Columbia government, Chairman 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, ruled that it would be in order 
to move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out after defeat of 
a motion that the Committee rise and report a bill to the House with 
the recommendation that it pass:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 3938, 3939, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    3490) to fix the amount of the annual payment by the United States 
    toward defraying the expenses of the government of the District of 
    Columbia; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be 
    limited to 2 hours.

    After completion of general debate and reading of the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill, Mr. 
Randolph, moved as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report 
    the bill back to the House with an amendment with the 
    recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as 
    amended do pass. . . .

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: If this motion to report the bill favorably does 
    not carry, it would then be in order to offer a motion to report 
    the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out.
        The Chairman: The bill would still be in the Committee, and 
    such a motion would be in order.

Precedence of Motion to Amend Over Motion to Rise and Report

Sec. 2.3 A motion to amend in the Committee of the Whole takes 
    precedence over a mo

[[Page 3263]]

    tion to rise and report a bill with recommendations.

    On July 27, 1937,(18) during consideration of H.R. 7730, 
to authorize the President to appoint certain administrative 
assistants, Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, stated that a motion to 
amend in the Committee of the Whole takes precedence over a motion to 
rise and report a bill with recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7699, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J.W.] Robinson of Utah and Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of 
    Mississippi] rose.
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the bill do pass.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the motion that it is not in order at this stage 
    of the proceedings.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that motions to amend take 
    precedence over a motion that the Committee rise.
        The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment, which the 
    Clerk will report.

Motion to Adjourn

Sec. 2.4 A motion to adjourn is not in order in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(19) during consideration of H.R. 7152, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, 
held that the motion to adjourn would not lie while the House was in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 2505, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 
        9619, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1961; 96 Cong. Rec. 2162, 
        2218, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950; and 95 Cong. Rec. 
        5616, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1949, for other examples of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I wonder 
    if it would be in order to move that the House do now adjourn, 
    while the coalition works out the substitute amend-ment? Would it 
    be in order to move that the House do now adjourn?
        The Chairman: A motion to adjourn, of course, does not lie 
    while the House is in the Committee of the Whole House.
        Mr. Whitten: I merely wished to know if it were possible under 
    the circumstances.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise, while the 
    coalition works out a settlement of the differences.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
        The motion was rejected.

Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 2.5 The motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole; however, proceedings may be vacated by unanimous consent

[[Page 3264]]

    after business has been transacted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2023, 
to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation, Chairman R. Ewing 
Thomason, of Texas, ruled that a motion to reconsider is not in order 
in the Committee of the Whole. However, after the transaction of 
business, the Committee agreed to a unanimous consent request to vacate 
certain proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong 1st Sess. See. also 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1966, for another 
        example of this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott: On page 1, lines 5 and 6, 
        after the word ``thereof'' in line 5, strike out the sign and 
        figure ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the sign 
        and figure ``$4,000,000,000.''

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . The Commodity Credit 
    Corporation agrees to it. I think it should be adopted. I am sure 
    there will be no objection to it.
        The Chairman: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Subsection (c) of section 381 of the Agricultural 
        Adjustment Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 67) is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(c) During the continuance of the present war and until 
        the expiration of the 2-year period. . . .''

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan. I had no right to agree to that 
    amendment. The amendment which I thought the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] submitted, and the only one that he ever 
    submitted to me, was an amendment to increase dairy payments to 
    $568,000,000, and to increase the noncrop program from $60,000,000 
    to $120,000,000. That was a clear misunderstanding on my part. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee, under the circumstances, to 
    reconsider its action.
        Mr. Wolcott: There will be no objection on my part.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the action by which the 
    amendment was agreed to will be vacated.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I want to ask the gentleman a question.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves the 
    right to object. . . .
        Is there objection?
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I object--until we can get some 
    information on the subject.
        Mr. [Roy O.] Woodruff of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The regular order is that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has objected to the consent request of the gentleman 
    from Kentucky.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of 
    the Com

[[Page 3265]]

    mittee by which the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Such a motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the 
    original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the 
    amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 2.6 The motion for the previous question is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Nov. 17, 1967,(1) during consideration of H.R. 13893, 
foreign aid appropriations, fiscal 1968, Chairman Charles M. Price, of 
Illinois, held that the motion for the previous question is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32964, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 112 Cong. Rec. 
        18115, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1966; and 110 Cong. Rec. 
        457, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1964, for other examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, is it in order to move the previous question on 
    this amendment now, inasmuch as we have had considerable debate on 
    it, and I have been trying to receive recognition for approximately 
    half an hour, but now I am willing to forgo my time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the moving of the 
    previous question is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

Motion to Table

Sec. 2.7 The motion to table is not in order in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Oct. 6, 1966,(2) during consideration of H.R. 13161, 
the elementary and secondary education bill, Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, ruled that the motion to table is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 25583, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 3266]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Watson: On page 76, line 15, after 
        ``1967'' change the period to a semicolon and insert: 
        ``Provided, however, That no funds shall be expended hereunder 
        so long as the present United States Commissioner of Education 
        occupies that office.''

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The amendment is not germane and is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is germane to the bill, and overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized in support of 
    his amendment.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be tabled.
        The Chairman: That motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

Sec. 2.8 The motion to lay on the table an appeal from a decision of 
    the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(3) after ruling that a proposed 
amendment was not germane to H.R. 4407, reducing appropriations, 
Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, held that a motion to table a 
decision of the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 9870, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, with all 
    the deference in the world for the distinguished Chairman, whom we 
    all love, I respectfully appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay 
    the appeal on the table.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, the appeal cannot be laid on the 
    table. The Committee has a right to vote on it.

        The Chairman: The motion to lay on the table is not in order in 
    the Committee. . . .
        The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' had it.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee of the Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 7700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937, 
        for another illustration of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 2.9 A unanimous-consent request that the Clerk of the House, in 
    the engrossment of the bill, be instructed to correct section 
    numbers is not in order in the Committee of the Whole; such 
    permission must be obtained in the House.

    On Oct. 3, 1962,(5) during consideration of H.R. 13273, 
the riv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3267]]

ers and harbors authorization bill, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, declared that a unanimous-consent request to instruct the 
Clerk to correct section numbers in the engrossment of a bill would 
have to be done in the House rather than the Committee of the Whole:

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, so as to 
    avoid any possible confusion in the numbering of these sections, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the Clerk of the House be instructed so 
    to number these sections serially that they are all in proper 
    sequence.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's request will have to be made in 
    the House.

Motion to Return to Section for Amendment

Sec. 2.10 In the Committee of the Whole a Member must obtain unanimous 
    consent to return to a section of a bill to offer an amendment; a 
    motion to do so is not in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1944,(6) during consideration of H.R. 5125, 
the surplus property bill, Chairman R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, stated 
that a Member must obtain unanimous consent to return to a section of a 
bill after that section has been passed, and indicated that such action 
cannot be taken by motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7122, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that we have passed 
    the section to which the amendment applies.
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we return to section 7 for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa asks unanimous consent to 
    return to section 7 for the purpose of offering an amendnent. Is 
    there objection?
        Mr. Manasco: I object, because we returned to that once and we 
    want to finish this bill this week if we can.
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I would have offered this amendment 
    earlier but I call attention to the fact that the reading of the 
    bill was very rapid and I did not have a chance; I did not have the 
    opportunity.
        The Chairman: The gentleman can return to a former section only 
    with the unanimous consent of the Committee and the Committee has 
    not given it.
        Mr. Jensen: Then, Mr. Chairman, I plead with the chairman of 
    the committee to let this amendment be considered. It is an 
    important amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jensen: What course can I take now to get this amendment 
    before the House? I am throwing myself on the mercy of the Chair?

[[Page 3268]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman has asked unanimous consent to 
    return to the section; the Committee has declined to grant it. The 
    Chair does not know what further the gentleman can do.

Motion to Dispense With Reading

Sec. 2.11 A motion to dispense with the full reading of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in order.

    On June 4, 1951,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the District of 
Columbia Law Enforcement Act of 1951 (H.R. 4141). The Chairman 
(8) stated that without objection the first [full] reading 
of the bill would be dispensed with. Objection was heard from Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, and the Chairman ordered the 
Clerk to read the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 6099-6101, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the reading of the bill a parliamentary inquiry was raised:

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York (interrupting the reading of 
    the bill): Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, is it possible under the 
    rules of the Committee of the Whole to by motion dispense with the 
    further reading of a bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that it requires unanimous 
    consent to suspend the further reading of the bill.
        Mr. Cole of New York: It is not possible to do that by motion?

        The Chairman: That motion is not privileged.(9) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance the Committee of the Whole 
        directed the reading in full of the bil1 on its first reading. 
        The bill was read by title only on the next day when the 
        Committee of the Whole reconvened to resume consideration of 
        it. Although the procedure followed was somewhat unorthodox, it 
        illustrates the point that any Member may demand a full reading 
        of a bill before general debate thereon begins, provided the 
        bill has not previously been read in full. The motion to 
        dispense with the full reading could be made privileged, 
        however, by means of a special rule reported from the Committee 
        on Rules, for example; or the reading in full could be 
        dispensed with by such a rule. Moreover, the motion to rise 
        would be in order, to permit the House, by motion, to dispense 
        with reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions Offered During Vote

Sec. 2.12 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    preferential while the Committee is dividing on a question.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(10) during consideration in Committee 
of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 9066, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3269]]

Whole of H.R. 5587, the first supplemental appropriations bill, several 
actions were taken in rapid succession:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]:
        Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now 
    close.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I trust 
    the gentleman will not press that motion.
        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    had it.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of the motion will rise and be 
    counted.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that we are in the middle of a vote.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion. 
    I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will ask the gentleman to reconsider, 
    because we are in the midst of taking a vote on a motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion 
    now.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this 
    time for that purpose.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The preferential motion to rise is in order 
until the count has commenced. See 88 Cong. Rec. 2374, 77th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Mar. 12, 1942; 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 
1942.